Whatever one’s opinion of this monstrous empire of all empires may be, one thing cannot be denied. It’s value in monetary consideration is virtually priceless, from its private vault collections to its billion plus tithing members pretending that money is a tribute of forgiveness for sin. But what can we possibly call this beast system that has no purchasable (conquerable) price upon its hydra-like head, a net worth without a net, and globally a partner with most (soon to be all) nations and religions?

What else can we call this universal incorporation but mammon incarnate?

Is this merely a passing metaphor, or can we begin to see evidence of such a adversarial nature?

Today I wish to share a few financial characteristics with my readers that, without a doubt in my own mind, shows that this Catholic (universal) church is nothing more than the protector of the faith, that faith being in the god of mammon. And just as the various denominations of global religions have apparently latched on to that papal teat, so too it appears has all denominations of currency have fallen under that global protectionism of the Holy See.

Perhaps unofficially it is and has always been this way?

Firstly, let us start with the source.

The Latin, Roman phrase Motu Propria carries the meaning of “on his own impulse,” and sometimes “of his own accord.” As a papally issued “law” it is a document issued by the Pope (or other sovereign “god”) which is considered to be only given on the personal initiative of that office of vicar, the acting christ-head of that corporation sole, which is the eternal (immortal) corporation passed on to each new man when appointed (anointed) to that office. This is not at all uncommon, as the Mormon “prophet” is also a corporation sole as “president” of that “corporation of the president.” The queen of England, bishops of several denominations, and other officers of government are also in the form of such immortal offices known as corporations sole. To be more accurate, any corporation is legally always an artificial person, and it must be said that the Bible is of course strictly against all forms of personhood and false, faltering titles. This is covered in triplicate in my upcoming volumes entitled Strawman: The Real Story Of Your Artificial Person. Please save this image and follow the link to the website where my book(s) will be downloadable for free soon.

The Pope’s issue of a motu proprio has a LEGAL effect. But worst of all, due to the pretended infallibility of the office, any lie, falsehood, or fraud may be a protected and legally upheld reason and justification without invalidation for such an infallible papal law. To be valid, it just needs the Pope’s will or initiative, while the purpose and effect are secondary to that impulse. It’s an unholy power of an idolotrous god.

This popular form of Papal rescript was first issued by Pope Innocent VIII in the year 1484. The first motto proprio createdby Pope Innocent VIII in 1484, and is often used as an establishment or amendment of law. In considering this ridiculous notion of infallibility and according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the canonists in their tradition referred to these motu proprio as “mother of repose,” for no corruption, fraud, or untruth is allowed to be sighted therein, the validity solely based on the word of the corporation sole (artificial person) that is the pope. It is he who makes “truth.” It is he who turns the darkness into a false light.

Though less formal than a constitution and absent the papal seal, the authority of this Motu Propria privilege may used to establish anything from instructional mandates, administrative statute, the creation of any commission (i.e. benefice), or to confer special favor, according to Encyclopedia Britannica.

Intima Ecclesiae natura, issued 11 November 2012 by Pope Benedict XVI, on the service of charity (guidelines for Catholic charitable organizations)[7]

Ai nostri tempi, issued 11 July 2013 by Pope Francis, on topics in canon law[8] with changes in the Vatican City State Law No. IX, of 11 July 2013, containing Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code[9] and Vatican City State Law No. VIII, of 11 July 2013, containing Supplementary Norms on Criminal Law Matters.[10]

—=—

One such recent document that was issued Motu Propria was this one, which is the main subject of this post:

Subsequently, with a view to strengthening further the measures already taken to prevent and counter potential illicit activitiesin the monetary and financial sectors, as well as countering the financing of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, by means of the Motu Proprio “The promotion” of 8 August 2013, I accorded new functions to the Financial Intelligence Authority.

Bearing in mind also the advice of the Commission for Reference on the Institute for the Works of Religion, which I established by means of the Chirograph dated 24 June 2013, I have deemed it appropriate to reform the internal structure of the Authority so that it may fulfill even more adequately its institutional functions and therefore, with this Apostolic Letter, I approve the Statutes of the Financial Intelligence Authority hereby attached, which replace the previous ones.

I dispose that everything established in this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Propriohas full and permanent value, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, although it may merit special mention, and I decree that it be promulgated by its publication in L’Osservatore Romano, entering into force on 21 November 2013.

Given in Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on 15 November of the year 2013, the first of the Pontificate.

Now, the typical faithful defender of this massive conglomerate “church” corporation will of course focus only on the apologetic notion that this legal intelligence agency is there to protect us and the legal “church-state” from those idiotic keywords of “money laundering” and “terrorism.” And indeed, these two terms are repeated over and over by this apologist pope in his forced declaration motu proprio. The god has spoken. It’s corporate will be done. But we forget that to protect money is to respect money, thus to protect mammon is to respect mammon. Notice that this will of the pope is not one that protects say children, but banks. It does not protect man or any aspect of God’s Nature, only the institutions of mammon.

Sometimes I feel like I’m the only one out here that can or is willing to cut through the Bull-shit of these false prophets and self-proclaimed vicars (replacements) of christ, revealing only that oh so hurtful Truth that offends so many worshipers of the lie. As I have revealed in my research, this term “legal” is another term for that which is antichrist, anti-God, or anti-Nature (Creation). These opposing forms of law that we still utilize today, the strict legal or civil law and the “unwritten” moral or spiritual Law of course have their origins in Rome. The Vatican even labels its own moral authority of its elected officer the pope as a “spiritual jurisdiction.”

But let us make no mistake, the Vatican bank and Bank of Rome are alive and well. They practice usury on a grand scale. And do not mistake the Bank of England for anything but the Bank of Rome! This chain of mammon was opened in Venice in 1587, the Wisselbank in Amsterdam in 1609, in Hamburg in 1619, Nuremberg in 1621, Rotterdam in 1635 and last but not least the Bank of England in 1694, being the first bank to actually be named after the country it is housed in. After the “Bank” of Rome it was officially to become the world’s first Central Bank.

In other words, these Romish banks were the ultimate weapon of usury in mammon around the world, destroying the welfare and prosperity of all nations it touched. But then something strange happened during the reign of King Edward VI (1547-1553).

“(Act relating to Usury.) Another bill was brought in against usury, which passed both houses, and was made a statute. By it, an act passed in the 37th of the late king (Henry VIII), that none might take above 20 per cent on money lent, was repealed; which they said was not intended for the allowing of Usury, but for preventing farther inconveniences. And since Usury was by the word of God forbidden, and set out in diverse places of Scripture as a most odious and detestable vice, which yet many continue to practice,for the filthy gain they make by it; therefore, from the 1st of May, all usury or gain from money lent was to cease; and whosoever continued to practise to the contrary, was to forfeit both principal and interest, to suffer imprisonment, and to be fined at the king’s pleasure.”

–Cobbett’s Parliamentary History of England, vol. I, p.596

—=—

Needless to say, his was a short reign, and his edict of anti-usury was of course repealed shortly thereafter in 1571.

Imagine a world without usury for a moment, without the need for new money. There would be no need for a central bank at all! Banking would become an unprofitable business, and bankers would be reduced to mere cashiers. And what possible power could the nations and the Vatican have without usury in mammon against the very scriptures it claims as its reason for being?

Eventually, with usury fully re-instituted by those Romish, Popish powers that be, the Bank of England was incorporated on July 27, 1694 as a private joint-stock association, founded by William Patterson (1658-1719). And the era of monopolistic corporate banking supported by the conspiring “church and state” and by making loans of money that could never apparently be repaid, including that whole starting capital of £1.2 million of the Bank of England being loaned to the English government, it was granted the exclusive right to issue notes and hold monopolistic oversight over the entirety of English corporate banking houses, with full support of the Parliament of course, which could end that central bank at any time but which also knows what happens to any entity or nation that defies the usurious Pope. Tied to that loaned principal was of course interest, compounded in a way that what lies in circulation is never enough to douse the flames of such usurious practices. More notes would always need to be issued as more and more compounded debt as usury was accumulated. And in this way, making all men and all nations as perpetual debtors, the debt itself became a performance debt, where the debt-slaves perform according to the will of their master lender. Of course the money is only a tool to cause performance, a win-win situation for the bankers, who would be paid in the money of its own creation or in the much more valuable collateral backing that loan. In order to preserve the collateral, the debtor must of course perform for the creditor.

England naturally expanded into the Americas via its corporations and through colonization, where the tables had turned, as the colonists this time attempted to oust the Romish central bankers of England in order to kill their outlaw usury.

The Parliament’s Stamp Act (called as the: Duties in American Colonies Act 1765; under George III) was used as a tool by these central bankers to quash any attempts by those colonists to outlaw their usurious practices. It was a simple plan; bond with usury a burden upon the American colonists with a tax that could only be paid in English specie (minted coins), of which were solely a proprietary production of the Bank of England. To pay the tax, the colonies would need to borrow their coinage from the central bank of their tyrannical, usurious master. Of course, compounded usury was attached to that borrowed coin, and through that compounded interest the common class of colonists were thrust into the very similar economic conditions we suffer today at the hands of these same international collective of central banks, which are today all reforming under the purview and best practices and statute (cannon) laws of the United Nations and the World Bank. This devious lending practice has continued unabated as nations and countries borrow from America or other usurious institutions and are forced to pay those loans of interest back with collateral, with such things as water and mineral rights which are handed over to the exploitive corporations controlled by the same governing Roman Law as its regulatory hand.

—=—

“That is simple. In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called ‘Colonial Scrip.’ We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods and pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to no one.”

“The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament, which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England and the Revolutionary War.”

“9th. That the duties imposed by several late acts of Parliament, from the peculiar circumstances of these colonies, will be extremely burthensome and grievous, and, from the scarcity of specie (coins), the payment of them absolutely impracticable.”

Franklin was also quoted in his opinion that the so-called revolution was caused by nothing more than the Bank of England and its usurious practices; practices of which are the common and standard business practices for the central bank of the United States and other nations today, only worse. For the Bank is the King and the King is the Bank. The revolution though can only be called as a deceit, creating only a newer, more organized, and more powerful monster than before, controlled by the same bloodlines that pretended to twice defeat it. War is of course the most single greatest and most profitable act of commerce imaginable, and also the greatest creator of debt, as nations clamor to acquire loans to fund their theaters of war. The central bank of the United States was created just two year after the signing of its constitution (corporate charter). For what is never discussed in the patriot mythology of today is the very definition of this word constitution. Let’s break it down into its component parts:

CONSTITUTION – contracts – The constitution of a contract, is the making of the contract as, the written constitution of a debt. (–Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856, as commissioned and made law by congress, as “Adapted to the constitution and laws of the United States of America and of the several States of the American Union.”)

CON – …1. To know. 2. To make oneself master of;to fix in the mind or commit to memory… (–Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828)

STICK – noun – [G. This word is connected with the verb to stick with stock, stack, and other words having the like elements. The primary sense of the root is to thrust, to shoot, and to set.]… – verb transitive preterit tense and participle passive – stuck. [G., to sting or prick, to stick to adhere.] 1. To pierce; to stab; to cause to enter, as a pointed instrument; hence, to kill by piercing; as, to stick a beast in slaughter. [A common use of the word.] 2. To thrust in; to fasten or cause to remain by piercing; as, to stick a pin on the sleeve… – verb intransitive – …2. To be united; to be inseparable;to cling fast to, as something reproachful… 4. To stop; to be impeded by adhesion or obstruction; as, the carriage sticks in the mire. 5. To stop; to be arrested in a course…11. To adhere closely in friendship and affection. There is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother. Proverbs 18:24. To stick to, to adhere closely; to be constant; to be firm; to be persevering; as, to stick to a party or cause… To stick by, 1. To adhere closely; to be constant; to be firm in supporting. We are your only friends; stick by us, and we will stick by you. 2. To be troublesome by adhering… (–Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828)

TUTELAR, TUTELARY – adjective – [Latin tutelaris, supra.] Having the guardianship or charge of protecting a person or a thing; guardian; protecting; as tutelary genii; tutelary goddesses. (–Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828)

TUTELAGE – noun – [from Latin tutela, protection, from tueor, to defend.] 1. Guardianship; protection; applied to the person protecting; as, the king’s right of seignory and tutelage. 2. State of being under a guardian. (–Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828)

TUTOR – noun – [Latin from tuero, to defend.] 1. In the civil law, a guardian; one who has the charge of a child or pupil and his estate. 2. One who has the care of instructing another in various branches or in any branch of human learning… – verb transitive – To teach; to instruct. 1. To treat with authority or severity. 2. To correct. (–Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828)

—=—

Whatever the reader may contemplate, in the legal realm Truth is much stranger than the fiction we are led to believe in by our chosen entertainment and the public tutelage by the legal public education system that is forced upon us by the state (nation) to create public-mindedness (idiocy).

Perhaps the most clever weapon created by these banks and their organizers and regulators (governments) was the creation of what we call modernly as the “personal loan.” Sold as commercial “product” made of thin air, this loan type is packaged in many ways and with many colors, from secured real estate loans to unsecured credit card debt charged with ridiculously high rates of usury. Whereas before the banks loaned only to governments, associations and corporations, and to men of high class and standing in their false nobility of blood, today any idiot can get a loan, and the most popular of these loans is the credit card.

But why was this such a brilliant move by the government’s banks in their pursuit of the usurious domination of all men?

To give every person a stake, a personal part of our own individual destruction in mammon, which is to say that every man has a choice to indenture himself to these moneychangers voluntarily and without force of government sanctions in taxation. These devils no longer need to steal our souls, for we contract and prostitute ourselves freely to that love of money in mammon via their constituted contracts. For it must be said that to love money is to believe in money and to believe in it is to respect its value. These terms are al equal in the legal setting, respect, belief, and love.

LIEVE – for lief, is vulgar. [See Lief.] (–Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828)

LIEF – adjective – [See Love.] Dear; beloved. [Obsolete.] – adverb [supra. This word coincides with love, Latin lubet, libet, and the primary sense is to be free, prompt, ready.] Gladly; willingly; freely; used in familiar speech, in the phrase, I had as lief go as not. It has been supposed that had in this phrase is a corruption of would. At any rate it is anomalous. (–Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828)

SUPRA – A Latin preposition, signifying above,over or beyond. (–Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828)

LOVE – verb transitive – luv. [Latin libeo, lubeo. See Lief. The sense is probably to be prompt, free,willing, from leaning, advancing, or drawing forward.] 1. In a general sense to be pleased with; to regard with affection,on account of some qualities which excite pleasing sensations or desire of gratification…The christian loves(believes in) his Bible. In short, we love whatever gives us pleasure and delight, whether animal or intellectual;and if our hearts are right, we love God above all things,as the sum of all excellence and all the attributes which can communicate happiness to intelligent beings… It isopposed to hatred.(–Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828) (Emphasis mine)

Thus the Biblical meaning of the love of money being as the root of all evil is not a Natural Love, but actually the hatred of debt, the false belief (love) that such unfunded debt actually exists and is binding, and thus the respect for it and the authority of its artificial creators. It is this love (belief) of money that has destroyed each and every one of us, whether we care to admit it or not. The rich or wealthy man is too far gone to admit his lucre is tainted, valuing his wealth and money over knowledge, setting aside such knowledge as the true evil, for his wealth depends upon the harm of all others who have nothing. And it is our national citizenship, a performance debt place upon each rented persona (legal status), that requires such love and respect of mammon in the central bank of the nation. It causes us to compete with each other over the false dialectic (logic) that money is scarce, though unlimited amounts can easily be created with the press of a keyboard computer system entry.

My favorite verse in the Bible, one that Truly caused me to reconsider my own love (belief) in money, is this one:

—=—

“Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth.”

–1 Corinthians 10:24, KJB

—=—

As I considered the consequences of such a suggestion, I realized this is the very opposite of this ancient system of Rome. We suffer at its hands and of its central banks and systems of internationally collaborative money and usury. This above all other verses changed my whole way of thinking. For it is the very revealing of a cure for all of this misery and suffering at the hands of tyrants and Pharisees in high places. This is the very definition of the Purest form of Charity, not some empty non-profit (non-prophet) donation to some false corporation calling itself by the empty name of a legal “501 charity,” but of a spiritual state of mind in all men that is the cure for all that causes dis-ease. It is the opposite of legalism, the opposite of mammon, the opposite of competition, and the opposite of modern corporate “religion.”

It is a vicious circle, for when both the government and the religions registered as “legal” corporations of and under government’s legal law are in league and support of mammon, of the justification of enslavement of all common men by usury, then no religion actually exists in Reality. Today’s churches are as fake and un-christ-like as any fiat currency out there. They support the legal fiction of the state and command against the scriptures to obey the “law of the land,” which in legal terms means only the “due process of law,” which in that fiction of law only means the “legal” opinion of the American and International Bar Associations (IBA).

As we will come to see, the Vatican is happily a partner with the IBA.

—=—

“The value of a thing is estimated according to its worth in money,but the value of money is not estimated by reference to a thing.”

Res per pecuniam sestimatur, et non pecunia perrem. Maxim of Law.

—=—

“It’s impossible to have religious freedom in any nation where churches are licensed to the government.”

“Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism, and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled; to conceal the Truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it. Truth is not for those who are unworthy or unable to receive it, or would pervert it. So God Himself incapacitates many men, by color-blindness, to distinguish colors, and leads the masses away from the highest Truth, giving them the power to attain only so much of it as it is profitable to them to know. Every age has had a religion suited to its capacity.

“The Teachers, even of Christianity, are, in general, the most ignorant of the true meaning of that which they teach. There is no book of which so little is known as the Bible. To most who read it, it is as incomprehensible as the Sohar.

“The George Washington University was founded in 1821 as the Columbian College in the District of Columbia using funds set aside by George Washington to create “an institution in the nation’s capital dedicated to educating and preparing future leaders.” Today, there are over 20,000 students from every state and 130 countries. Located just four blocks from the White House, it is fitting that the 2009 Princeton Review ranks GWU as second in the nation for “Most Politically Active Students…”

“Aside from being named after America’s most famous Freemason, it’s notable that Freemasonry and the Scottish Rite have deep historical connections to the George Washington University. For example, Rice Hall which houses the University’s administrative offices, including the president’s office, is named for Luther Rice, a Mason and Baptist Minister who originally conceived the idea for the University. Three of the last five of the University’s presidents have been Masons, including President Emeritus and Colonial Lodge member Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, 33°, G.C. A gift of $1 million by the Scottish Rite in the 1928 created the University’s School of Government, and there have been Masonic cornerstone laying ceremonies for at least five University buildings, including in 2003 for the Elliott School of International Affairs. Masonry is also responsible for the Wolcott Foundation, created by the High Twelve International, for undergraduate and graduate scholarships to the University.”

—‘The University Lodge: A History and Case Study,’ excerpted from the Supreme Council of 33rd Degree Scottish Rite Masonry, Southern Jurisdiction, United States website, (scottishrite.org)

—=—

It’s always fun and horribly enlightening to put these pieces of the puzzle together. And it is not surprising that the secrets of the Bible are so well kept, even despite the fact that a Bible sits upon the shelves of every home and library and false church out there. For the best kept secrets are those hidden in plain sight. To hide the intent of any language, one only need create a language barrier. And so the Bible is hated and loved not because it is comprehended, but because it is compared to the church, though it is very much against such temples built by hands in masonry. We are taught that the church is a building instead of a spiritually driven, building-less People.

But what of this love (belief) of money? How does this love and respect of the nothingness that these gods (magistrates) of mammon represent as world fiat currencies destroy us all so easily? And what causes us to continue to respect and believe in (love) the fallacy that debt actually exists in Reality, as if it is an undeniable Creation of God?

The money has no value except that which we attach it to in our imaginations, in our love for it. The money is created by the govern-ment (mind control) of the idolatrous nations. All “Christian” religions are incorporated artificial persons licensed to practice legally (not spiritually) under (not over) the government, and so all “Christians” are encouraged to support, love (believe in), respect, and have faith in government, including its monopoly and “trust” on money creation. No one seems to ask what god is invoked when we pass these bills to and fro, as that incantation of “IN GOD WE TRUST” is never questioned. One thing is clear, this “god” certainly cannot be the God of Nature, the God of Reality, the God of “Creation.” Any fool can surely comprehend that much. But of course those in government and those who founded (constituted) it are, if not Masons, friendly to its universal (catholic) cause. And that cause is the protection of Rome, of the Caesar’s we call as those districted nations united under one governing religion of mammon.

CATHOLIC –adjective – 1.Universal or general; as the catholic church. Originally this epithet was given to the Christian church in general, but is now appropriated to the Romish church, and in strictness there is no catholic church, or universal Christian communion. The epithet is sometimes set in opposition to heretic, sectary or schismatic. 2.Liberal; not narrow minded, partial or bigoted; as a catholic man. 3.Liberal; as catholic principles. Catholic epistles, the epistles of the apostles which are addressed to all the faithful, and not to a particular church. – noun – A papist. (–Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828)

—=—

Of course the Catholic mind must be liberal. How else can one possibly accept the doctrines of the Catholic church and its corporate officer the Pope unless one ignores the scriptures? How else can “Christians” accept such blatantly false doctrines without having a liberal mind? And how else can all the nations of the world be formed unless the scriptures as the self0evident Law of Nature be purposefully ignored? This word liberal is yet another misunderstood term, and is a necessary state of mind for public-mindedness, so that multiculturalism and acceptance of all other forms of religious law, even that which is opposed to their very name-sake of christianity, are tolerated and integrated into society to the point that no religious way can possibly be found by the average plebe.

In the mythos of this nation as well, the “founding fathers” were certainly said to be known as “liberals,” and are most famous in their deism for ensuring the separation of the Highest moral Law of scripture from their own business ventures and slave-holding plantations in the enterprises of commerce and usury in mammon. For what man may hold slaves and charge usury if he follows the moral Law?

—=—

“Of fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence, fifty-three were Master Masons… George Washington the founder of this country was the first Grand Master of Masons’of this commonwealth compromising the thirteen original States of this Land of Liberty founded on the principles ofBrotherly Love, Faith, Hope and Charity, the vital breath of which is “Individual Liberty” and an equal opportunity to all of its citizens. Of the twenty-nine Major Generals in Washington’s army twenty four were Master Masons, of the thirty seven Brigadiers, thirty seven were Master Masons, proving that this “Land of Liberty” was founded by Master Masons. Now as then, masonry’s challenge is the Holy Bible, its teachings from the center to circumference symbols of the everlasting. “The Washington Monument is built of stone contributed by all the nations of the earth to honor the founder of this republic. From Arlington it looks like a giant spike which God had driven, saying ‘Here I stake a claim for the home of Liberty’.”

The first central bank of the United States was of course chartered shortly after the Masonic constitution of the United States was, in 1791, for a central bank is after all a necessary plank of what is modernly called as the Communist Manifesto, of which all ten planks are now law in the United States. Though its charter expired after 20 years, and the bank abolished, it was re-chartered just 5 years later, in 1816. Again its 20 year charter was ended and not renewed in 1836. Not to be outdone, the Banksters of the Crown corporation reestablished the central bank as the “Federal Reserve” we know it today. But in taking a cue from previous failures, the charter of the Federal Reserves was recreated into infinity, creating the central bank that can never die unless congress wills it. As it stands, there is no contractual end of the charter for the federal reserve.

In answer to the many fallacious claims by so many alternative news outlets that simply do not fact-check what they parrot, the Federal Reserve found it necessary to create a section reserved just for the idiocracy that is the so-called “truth” movement, which in this author’s opinion is a controlled opposition designed to deceive the seekers of actual Truth, just as Masonry decrees in its doctrines. In short, those who take the name of “truth” and wear it as a false badge of courage but only seek its origin from second and third-hand sources as those in the “truth” movement do, as Albert Pike stated above, deserve neither Truth nor the Natural liberty under God’s Law it reveals.

On its website the Federal Reserve puts to rest any notion of its own legal mortality:, one of many patriot mythologies stemming from false “truthers” that it laughably corrects:

“Is the Federal Reserve Act going to expire?

“No.The Federal Reserve Act of 1913—which established the Federal Reserve as the central bank of the United States—originally chartered the Federal Reserve Banks for 20 years. But in the McFadden Act of 1927, the Congress rechartered the Federal Reserve Banks INTO PERPETUITY, and so there is currently no “expiration date” or repeal date for the Federal Reserve.“

Such power does this “truth” movement have as its misinformation causes waves in that holy sea (See) of commerce that it causes such federal agencies to correct the idiocy promulgated by those false prophets. The agency is also forced to dispel all of the other “truths” told about its ownership, its supposed privacy, its apparent non-federal status, and its ability to make a profit.

“Who owns the Federal Reserve?

The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not “owned” by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.

As the nation’s central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority FROM THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

However, the Federal Reserve IS SUBJECT TO OVERSIGHT BY THE CONGRESS, which often reviews the Federal Reserve’s activities and can alter its responsibilities BY STATUTE. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as “independent WITHIN the government” rather than “independent of government.”

The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized SIMILARLY to private corporations–possibly leading to some confusion about “ownership.” For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stockto member banks.

However, owning Reserve Bank stock is QUITE DIFFERENT from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, A CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIP in the System. The stock MAY NOT BE SOLD,TRADED, OR PLEDGED as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, paid to member banks at a maximum rate of 6 percent, determined in part by each member bank’s total assets.

Through painstaking research and airtime I have tried desperately to wake the mass of misled “truthers” up from their own delusions, from their own internal and external “infowar,” seemingly to no avail. The lies continue, parroted as “truths.” And this grandest of all patriot mythologies, in this author’s humble opinion, is one perpetrated by the very entities that wish to create a decoy. Obviously the Central Bank cannot exist without the full support and statute of congress and the belief (love) and respect of all involved. And we must remember that even hatred of anything is still a form of belief and respect of that thing’s existence. They say that hate and love are synonymous, and perhaps now we may understand why that is. And so the real enemy has floated complete bullshit to the main outlets of false “truth”, imagining a strawman enemy and argument of its own creation, so that the public will actually think that the Federal Reserve is not bound by the hand that created and regulates it, that being the congress of the United States. Thus this word independence is used without condition by “truthers” who know not the legal meaning of that word. And just like their own franchise of “freedom” that they believe is True and Natural liberty instead of a state of servitude and voluntary slavery to the nation they are the goyim (multitude) of, so too have we been made to believe that the Federal Reserve is somehow Naturally independent and somehow separate (meaning private) from government. And soundbites from official sources further fool us into such beliefs (love) of these false “truths.” Even as ridiculous as this concept is, that congress (the legal gods) created some entity that they then cannot control and have no power to abolish, the creation being somehow more powerful than its creator, and despite every actual official and legitimate published source available, the lie still persists despite the actuality of the nature of this United States central bank. And most importantly to this great and powerful delusion, the congress pretends to be the helpless victim of its own creation, claiming their hands are tied and even passing laws that allow the chairman of the Fed to withhold information in any public forum or congressional inquiry, further leading the “truthers” to believe that the Fed is “private” and not bound by its creator congress. They never realize that when the chairman of the Fed sits so arrogantly across from that public inquiry of its creator congress (god), that the reason he in his official capacity and by law refuses to answer any questions is because the law prevents public disclosure of those facts addressed. In other words, the congress is asking questions of the Fed chairman that it knows its officer will not be able to answer under charges of perjury!!! And this is in turn used in media sound bites to prove the private authority of the Federal Reserve. It’s a very clever game. It is called govern-ment (mind control) for a reason, for even the most ardent seeker of the Truth is blinded by its power. And inversely, the universal church stands only to subvert men from discovering the very Real Truth presented in the Bible, a Truth that would utterly destroy all denominations (proper names) of “Christianity,” a false and flattering title of no substance created by the Roman Caesar. The word Christian was certainly not a creation of christ or of God, and christ never directed anyone to become a legal “Christian.” Quite the opposite. Again, this is covered in triplicate in my upcoming volumes of research.

My in depth research long ago uncovered this idiocy about the many false rumors surrounding the Federal Reserve system, and the actual, primarily sourced reality about this agency of government can be found here:

Here are some prime examples of very bad research that leads so many astray and cause so much arrogance of ignorance. And yet I am somehow the enemy for routing out these vipers of disinformation that tell lies worse than any banker or agency of government by simply pointing to the actual, primary sources of information. The Truth, and only the Truth, will set you free. Applying the flattering, empty title of “truth” to anything or anyone does not necessarily, and very seldom in fact, make it so…

—=—

“Government Preparing for the End of the Federal Reserve Charter in 2013”

“The Federal Reserve Charter began on December 23, 1913. This charter was good for 100 years, ensuring the Federal Reserve’s control over the United States currency…”

I can’t count how many times I’ve shown this particular disinformation agent to be false, though I am unaware as to her status of useful idiot or handled asset. Whatever the case, these conspiratorial liars cause most people to miss the actual conspiracy (which is government itself) and focus on these false realities. What is the actual source of this lie remains unclear, but Suzzane Posel’s post seems to be the most often parroted among “thruthers” and their unverified, un-vetted sources.

And then there’s this type of random “truth” rumor reporting. This guy has no clue, seeking no legitimate source except by other “truthers.” How embarrassing it must be to create and support a petition to “end the 100 year charter” of the Fed when the simplest of research will reveal that the original 20 year charter was abolished by congress and changed into an unconditional perpetuity that only congress can end. And was there an apology? A correction? Anything?

—=—

From the parroting of these myths comes other logical fallacies based on the truth of the original lies, generally in the form of pointless speculation on a fictitious event and date that in reality doesn’t exist. Like December 21, 2012 as the supposed end of the world as we know it, the proclaimed end-day of the Fed came and went without a whimper, while congress laughed at all this idiocracy over a beer with Ben Bernanke and “Sir” Alan Greenspan.

—=—

And of course we cannot forget the progenitor and loud speaker of this total spoof, G. Edward Griffen, who plagiarized much of his work from Eustace Mullins without credit. Note that he says he doesn’t want to talk about what is “unpopular” in this interview, as so many “authors” of “truths” wish not to disturb the putrid pools of pond scum they have recreated. Of course not, because the “truth” movement loves and subsists on its own created lies.

—=—

While this soft and well-spoken man, who relies on the grandfatherly appearance of his trustworthiness to overshadow his untrustworthy words, just as Alex Jones relies on quite the opposite approach to quash any notion he is full of his own shit, spouts his mythology in such professional fashion, a special thanks to the website “Exposing Faux Capitalism” for breaking down the bullshit that is professed here. For the best lies are those parroted amongst actual Truths. The best salesman always uses Reality to peddle his own brand of fictions.

“Some interesting points arose out of this November 24, 2013 interview on the Big Plantation with G. Edward Griffin:

16m – In clearing up misconception about a 100-year charter for the Federal Reserve, he says there originally was one, and it was later removed, when in reality it was a 20-year charter.

19m – No JFK speech at Columbia university about breaking up Fed, as he had never even been to that university.

28m – Admits govt can shut down gold and silver, too. (In other words, its speculative value in dollars is subject only to government’s valuation.)

28m – Said it’s a good idea to have your assets tied up in gold and silver (FC: It wasn’t a good idea in 1933 and 1934, when they were confiscated, respectively!). (Funny to consider gold and silver, which is called as “lawful money,” is somehow protected from confiscation. They can take anything they want, your home, your children, your pets, and your God damned gold. No really, gold is looked down upon in the Bible folks. Seek knowledge, not gold and jewels.)

34m – Laughably says it doesn’t mean they want to back a currency with it, because it puts limits on their ability to make more money off interest. (What about the U.S. backing up its money supply from 1914 to 1933 40% by gold? Were the people crying out for that, or was it the bankers? He’s either unaware of, or intentionally concealing the historical pattern of the bankers reverting to some gold standard in order to shore up confidence in the monetary system after they’ve collapsed the current one.) (Exactly… wash, rinse, and repeat. I like this guy.)”

Well, at least the real creature Griffen got one thing right! The former charter, though 20 years not 100 years, was indeed reworked into perpetuity by congress. But he still proclaims the Federal Reserve is somehow not “federal.” Does that mean congress is not “federal” either? Unfortunately these very well-placed mistakes, either conscious or not, drive the “truth” movement into the very bowels of the darkness of ignorance.

Kudos at least to Bill Still, author of the Money Masters, though still a trumpeter and repurposer of many false quotes and mythologies parroted by others before him over and over in that “movement” and in the “truth” in documentary form, for at least coming forward to correct this “truth” that he was before unaware of and thus for verifying a rumor to be false when asked his opinion about it by the great shit factory of media entertainment corporations that is the Alex Jones’ “Infowars” machine.

—=—

—=—

Let’s take a look at the repercussions of such irresponsible reporting, as it manifests in a trickle-down effect amongst so many sincere seekers of what is really happening in the world. That is, until it reaches my eyes and ears!

From the GodLikeProductions.com forum, one member speculates that the “Federal Reserve’s 100 Year Charter Ends the SAME DAY as the Mayan Calendar ENDS.” Another post seems to challenge other members and perhaps the “truth” movement altogether with the headline “Why No Mention That The Federal Reserve’s 100 Year Charter Expires Soon,” as if some faction or element of the “truth” movement is trying to hide that fact. So funny…

TheTruthNews.com carries the headline: “Charter of the Federal Reserve Act expires in 2013,” reposting and parroting the poo flung by the original sourced monkey Suzanne Posel.

The SaviorsOfTheEarth website and forum posted this: “The U.S. Federal Reserve’s 100 Year Charter Expires ON The Now Infamous Date of December 21, 2012! …The U.S. Federal Reserve’s 100 year charter expires on the now infamous date of December 21, 2012. Its all over the net…“

RealistNews.net’s forum included this post: “So Did The FEDERAL RESERVE give themsleves another 100 year contract? …The 99 year contract Congress gave the Federal Reserve back in 1913 has run out… why does that not matter to the public?” It then referred to another source from RumerMillNews.com, a source that has been deleted from that site, here: (http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/arc…ead=151858)

—=—

Fortunately, as word got around that this was a hoax, the “truthers” started correcting themselves in their own forums, often sounding almost disappointed that the lie wasn’t real, complete with the facts that these facts were only presented on “conspiracy” fact websites. Sadly, these things give a very bad reputation to the actual legal word conspiracy, which are thus used against all of the real cries of these sheep that unwittingly follow wolves dressed up like them. But of course there is no conspiracy from government. There cannot be. For the very definition of the word conspiracy in law is CONFEDERATION!!! Amazingly, we never wake up to the fact that we are all part of the conspiracy of government, pledging our fealty and love to it, and accepting therefore all it does against us and others.

CONFEDERACY – Criminal law. An agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or an act, which though not unlawful in itself, becomes so by the confederacy. The technical term usually employed to signify this offense, isCONSPIRACY. (Bouv1856)

CONSPIRATORS – Persons guilty of a conspiracy. Those who bind themselves BY OATH, covenant, or other alliance that each of them shall aid the other falsely and maliciously to indict persons; or falsely to move and maintain pleas, etc. Besides these,there are conspirators in treasonable purposes; as for plotting against the government. (Black4)

CONSPIRACY – In criminal law. A combination or CONFEDERACY between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful. A combination, or an agreement between two or more persons, for accomplishing an unlawful end or a lawful end by unlawful means. A partnership in criminal purposes. The essence of “conspiracy” is an agreement, together with an overt act, to do an unlawful act, or do a lawful act in an unlawful manner. Mere knowledge, acquiescence, approval, or attempt on part of one to perpetuate illegal act is insufficient. A conspiracy may be a continuing one;actors may drop out,and others drop in; the details of operation may change from time to time; the members need not know each other or the part played by others; a member need not know all the details of the plan or the operations; he must, however, know the purpose of the conspiracy and agree to become a party to a plan to effectuate that purpose. A consultation or agreement between two or more persons. either falsely to accuse another of a crime punishable by law; or wrongfully to injure or prejudice a third person,or any body of men, in any manner; or to commit any offense punishable by law; or to do any act with intent to prevent (BAR) the course of justice;or to effect a legal purpose with a corrupt intent, or by improper means. (Black4) (EMPHASIS MINE)

—=—

Silly rabbits, government cannot conspire against itself. Its very creation was the original sin, the origin and encompassment of the entirety of a conspiracy, a confederated plan and covenant by oath to create a legal corporation (district) that would falsely impersonate and cause fictional, legal attainder (corruption of blood) to all who become voluntarily its legal persons (public citizen-ships) under oath to protect it even from ourselves (domestics).

In short, the government cannot commit conspiracy against itself or its public persons, which is to say that it cannot commit evils against any of its own public creations (citizenships).

EVIL – It is an “evil” within rule that either means or end of conspiracy must be evil, to frustrate or impede a government function,whether that function is performed under a constitutional or an unconstitutional law. (Black4)

UNCONSTITUTIONAL – That which is contrary to the constitution. The opposite of “constitutional.” The word DOES NOT necessarily mean that the act assailed is contrary to sound principles of legislation.(Black4)

—=—

What is evil to that which is evil is only that which is good. To evil, to a conspirator (confederate) in binding combination under a sacred oath with others, the only evil (conspiracy) is that which is opposed to the original evil (confederation/conspiracy/combination).

Perspective is everything…

And this is why the alternative media model, the “truth” and “patriot” movements, are miserable failures. Never are any of the “truths” or actual sourced research presented therein ever taken to court. It would be pointless endeavor, since all of the crimes of congress are legally licensed by their own statutes. Their own constitution even proclaims them to be immune from punishment while in their fictional seats of office and while on company (United States) business. No story is ever followed through. It’s just a vomitous spew of information, a convincing mix of lies with realities. And it’s worthless. It means nothing without the courts opinion of it. There is no conspiracy because the conspirators sit in judgement over their own conspiracy. It’s a closed loop system. Nothing Alex Jones and other information vomiters has ever gone past the microphones and the $19.99 DVD’s and books they prostitute. It’s just info, and the real war is to ensure disclosure without any effect or punishment. The war on our minds is to cause in us a collective stillness, so that as long as the so-called “truth” is being told, surely something will be done about it. But nothing ever happens.

This is the stagnant cesspool of these information pushers, a false dialectic that directs the mind into believing that merely speaking about and “exposing” the crimes is somehow akin to a public lynching. But the lynch-pin stays safely secured. The hangman retired long ago. And the only actual event taking place, the only real Truth, is that the bank accounts and egos of these disinformation agents are getting a whole lot fatter.

To be clear, what this commercial congress creates has nothing to do with the constitution. They wear two hats, de jure (of law) and de facto (illegitimate). Their public laws and statutes with regards to commerce are a separate aspect of government, a side business that has nothing to do with the constitution. Legislation by congress in commercial matters (in mammon) need not be at all constitutional, and its evils “within rule” cannot be questioned or challenged, lest the challenger be in conspiracy against government. We must understand that most of the functionality of congress is indeed unconstitutional, prima facie, and deals only with those of us in public citizenship to its district. Citizenships of the United States, as creations of the District of Columbia, are not protected in any way by the constitution. A federal (non-State) citizenship is purely commercial in its nature, having nothing to do with the negative constitutional protections that private citizens (landholders of the private/several States) enjoy.

If you can understand the following definitions, then you can understand why a United States citizen-ship stands only without unalienable rights in a commercial franchise of usury, of usufruct, of voluntary servitude, and is not a party to the constitution, which protects only the negative, reserved rights of private (not public) State citizens. The international law of nations under admiralty/maritime law is not the same as the private law of the several (private) States (the People).

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA – A territory situated on the Potomac river, and being the seat of government of the United States. It was originally ten miles square, and was composed of portions of Maryland and Virginia ceded by those states to the United States; but in 1846 the tract coming from Virginia was retroceded. Legally it is neither a state nor a territory, but is made subject, by the constitution, to the exclusive jurisdiction of congress. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA – IS NEITHER A STATE NOR A TERRITORY.Congress is authorized“to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.” Maryland and Virginia ceded territory on the Potomac, which Congress, by act of July 16, 1790, accepted. In December, 1800, the seat of government was removed from Philadelphia. By the act of July 11,1846, Congress retroceded the county of Alexandria to Virginia. The District constitutes the county of Washington. A CITIZEN OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NOT A CITIZEN OF A STATE. The laws in force December 1, 1873, were revised and republished, by direction of Congress, in a separate volume known as the Revised Statutes relating to the District of Columbia. (W.C. Anderson’s Dictionary of Law, 1889)

—=—

For further clarification, let us view the history of this district as told in Federal case of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, a Municipal Corporation, Petitioner, v. OCEAN RISK RETENTION GROUP, INC:

Sections 1 and 18 of the act of congress of February 21, 1871, entitled ‘An act to provide a government for the District of Columbia‘ (16 St. 419), are as follows: ‘Section 1. That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act.’ ‘Sec. 18. That the legislative power of the District shall [129 U.S. 141, 144] extend to all rightful subjects of legislation within said District, consistent with the constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act, subject, nevertheless, to all the restrictions and limitations imposed upon states by the tenth section of the first article of the constitution of the United States… These sections are carried forward into the act of congress of June 22, 1874, entitled ‘An act to revise and consolidate the statutes of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, relating to the District of Columbia, in force on the first day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three,’ as sections 2, 49, 50…

And Whereas: The Constitution does provide that Congress has the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district not exceeding ten miles square, as may, by session of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, BECOME THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

And Whereas: On February 21, 1871, the Forty First Congress passed an act entitled “An Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia,” legislating the organization of a municipal corporation to run the day to day affairs of the District of Columbia, the seat of government, which transferred the United States of America,the Republic,INTO “A CORPORATE ENTITY” entitled UNITED STATES, in capital letters, having “no” jurisdiction outside the District of Columbia.

And Whereas: Congress adopted the text of the federal constitution as the constitution or charter of this municipal corporation. This municipal corporation was granted the power TO CONTRACT to provide municipal services to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia and necessarily as an operation of the privileges and immunity clause of Article Four of the Constitution, any other person who chooses to contract for its services.

—=—

A difficult pill to swallow, we must realize that citizenship to the United States is a contractual relationship. But more to the point, we must take into consideration the maxims (principles) of law, which state that the contract makes the law. The laws of the federal government of the United States are public laws which do not effect or bind the private “People” of each State. But a contracted, public United States citizen-ship is a creation of the United States, and the maxim (principle) of law states that the creator controls. A man that stands privately (non-commercially) has no citizen-ship (vessel) of the United States, respecting that union only as a compact in conspiracy (confederation) that stands to protect his reserved rights of privacy. But a man acting in the agency of a public person (legal status) created by the United States under contract is the opposite of the private man acting as a State citizen, and retains nothing of his God-given or unalienable rights thereof, opting instead to a contractual state in subjection and voluntary servitude (under the doctrine of master and servant) to that district. A United States person only exists in the extended jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, also known as “the United States,”

—=—

“…This position is assented to by Chief Justice MARSHALL, speaking for this court, in the case of Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445, 452, where the question was whether a citizen of the District could sue in the circuit courts of the United States as a citizen of a state. The court did not deny that the District of Columbia is a state in the sense of being A DISTINCT POLITICAL COMMUNITY, but held that the word ‘state‘ in the constitution, where it extends the judicial power to CASES BETWEEN CITIZENS OF THE SEVERAL “STATES,“REFERS TO THE STATES OF THE UNION…

“…it was held that parties residing in one county could not be said to be‘beyond the seas,’or in a different jurisdiction,in reference to the other county, though the two counties were subject to different laws. We are clearly of opinion that the plaintiff (as the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) IS A MUNiCIPAL CORPORATION, having a right to sue and be sued, and subject to the ordinary rules that govern the law of procedure between private persons.

“Corporations are ‘PERSONS‘IN THE LAW.There is no apparent reason why they should not be included in the statute. It is conceded that private corporations are included…

“It cannot apply to the sovereign power, of course.No restrictive laws apply to the sovereign unless so expressed. And especially no laws affecting a right on the ground of neglect or laches, because neglect and laches cannot be imputed to him. And it matters not whether the sovereign be an individual monarch, or a republic or state. The principle applies to all sovereigns.The reason usually assigned for this prerogative is that the sovereign is not answerable for the delinquencies of his agents. But, whatever the true reason may be, such is the general law,—such the universal law,except where it is expressly waived. The privilege, however, is a prerogative one, and cannot be challenged by any PERSON INFERIOR to the sovereign, whether that person be natural or corporate…

“The doctrine is well understood, that to the sovereign power the maxim ‘nullum tempus occurrit regi‘ applies, and that the United States and the several states are not, without express words, bound by statutes of limitation. Although municipal corporations are considered as public agencies,exercising, in behalf of the state, public duties,there are many cases which hold that such corporations are not exempt from the operation of limitation statutes, but that such statutes, at least as respects all real and personal actions, run in favor of and against these corporations in the same manner and to the same extent as against natural persons.’ In Evans v. Erie Co., 66 Pa. St. 222, 228, SHARSWOOD, J., says: ‘That the statute of limitations runs against a county or other municipal corporation, we think, cannot be doubted. The prerogative is that of the sovereign alone; nullum tempus occurrit reipublicae. Her grantees, THOUGHARTIFICIAL BODIES CREATED BY HER, are in the same category with natural persons‘…“

To have public (federal) citizenship in the United States, which is seated in the municipal corporation of Washington D.C., is to no be a citizen privately of any State. We have all been duped by the birth certification process, which is the creation of a legal United States entity (legal person), to contract in that person as agents of the principality of the United States. We confirm and ratify our public person-hood with every signature, every benefit taken, every number assigned, and every expression of use of that commercial vessel (ship) until finally, at the age of consent or “adulthood,” we enter into legalized (licensed) adultery in that commercial jurisdiction of mammon. We are thus rendered unto Caesar (the district).

No legally created entity (admixed corporate name) of the commercial government of the United States has unalienable rights, for national citizenship is the opposite of being a private State citizen, being as one who reserves all non-franchised, natural law rights under God. The very notion of public or national citizenship is very much a lean on all such “God-given” rights, which are replaced by a commercial franchise under contractual relationship called as “freedom” within the jurisdiction of the United States. All the goyim born in the nations united around the world are under the contract of this synagogue of satan, causing us to act adversarial to our very nature and best interests, and placing us into a hopeless state of land-less commercial being in abandonment of our God. It matters not what your religion is, you have a god (magistrate). Your god is either Natural or unnatural, legal fictions or Reality. The choice to contract in the person (status) of another, of a municipal corporation subservient to congress, is the choice to accept the artificial state and its magistrates and administrative judges as your god, the creator of the legal status (person) you play the part of. The ship (person) of the United States citizen is under the control of these legal gods, while the Bible, as being part of the common law, is abandoned under said contract of U.S. citizenship. The common law does not apply to U.S. citizens, meaning that the state is free (separate) from the church, and more specifically that no moral, spiritual, or natural law of any kind applies to the contracted relationship. The U.S. citizenship, standing in total abandonment of all God-given rights, is purely a legal commercial entity.

For those who dismiss the Bible because they have dismissed the True Nature of what religion actually is, an act of sheer ignorance, let us examine this choice between being private and contracting in public. To act in religion against the legal law of man and to accept a false, flattering title of some corporation calling itself legally as a “religion” are two completely different things. Flattering titles do not make the man. And “Christian” is an empty word, as are all of its denominations (names) stemming from the “Catholic” universal legal church and state. And so, if the reader wishes to discover why he or she is a slave to this system of deceit and piracy, why his patriotic “truths” never seem to jive with the realities experienced under this legal police state, you better loose your ego and fully comprehend the following, and realize that the corporate, legal church and state, no matter what it calls itself, can only be antichrist in its artificial nature.

CHRISTIAN – One who believes or assents to the doctrines of Christianity, as taught by Jesus Christ in the New Testament, or who, being BORN of Christian parents or IN A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY,does not profess any other religion,or does not belong to any one of the other religious divisions of man. See NAME. (W.C. Anderson’s Dictionary of Law, 1889)

CHRISTIANITY – The religion established by Jesus Christ. 2. Christianity has been judicially declared to be a part of the common law of Pennsylvania… To write or speak contemptuously and maliciously against it, is an indictable offense. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

CHRISTIANITY – The system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ; the religion founded by Christ. Christianity is said to be part of the common law.“Christianity is parcel of the laws of England; and, therefore, to reproach the Christian religion is to speak in subversion of the law.” “The essential principles of natural religion” and “of revealed religion, are a part of the common law, so that any person reviling or subverting or ridiculing them may be prosecuted at common law.” “The true sense of the maxim is that the law will not permit the essential principles of revealed religion to be ridiculed and reviled.” Christianity is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania in the qualified sense that its divine origin and truth are admitted, and therefore it is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public. Not Christianity founded upon any particular religious tenets;but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.The maxim does not mean that Christianity is an established religion; nor that its precepts, by force of their own authority, form part of our system of municipal law; nor that the courts may base their judgments upon the Bible; nor that religious duties may be penally enforced; nor that legal discrimination in favor of Christianity is allowed. The best features of the common law, especially those which regard the family and social relations, if not derived from, have at least been improved and strengthened by, the prevailing religion and the teachings of its sacred Book.But the law does not attempt to enforce the precepts of Christianity on the ground of their sacred character or divine origin. Some of those precepts, though we may admit their continual and universal obligation,we must nevertheless recognize as being incapable of enforcement by human laws. Those precepts, moreover, affect the heart,and address themselves to the conscience;while the laws of the state can regard the outward conduct only: FOR WHICH REASONS CHRISTIANITY IS NOT PART OF THE LAW OF THE LAND IN ANY SENSE WHICH ENTITLES THE COURTS TO TAKE NOTICE OF AND BASE THEIR JUDGEMENTS UPON IT, except so far they can find that its precepts and principles have been incorporated in and made a component part of the law of the State. The maxim can have NO REFERENCE TO THE LAW OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT,since the sources of that law are the CONSTITUTION, TREATIES, AND ACTS OF CONGRESS. (W.C. Anderson’s Dictionary of Law, 1889)

—=—

The key to understanding here is the difference between who established the religion. The religion of christ is the Bible, as the law of God, christ being the example of how man is to act in accordance with that Highest spiritual Law of God and no other, despite all other temptations, and also known by such modern names as the Natural Law and equitableness (but not as “equality”). The Catholic religion was started by Caesar, a flattering legal title forced upon all his pagan citizenry, carried on by the immortal office of “Pope,” and guarded legally and violently throughout history by the vatican city-state. Thus our legal person of the state falls under the law of the establisher of the church, just as the constitution was militarily “established” and religiously “ordained” as one entity. Separation is not divorce, just a really bad relationship. The church and state, as we have just read and by whatever name we denominate it under, are both opposed to the Natural Law of God, and always stand in combination to enslave by deception. All persons, all corporations, are unnatural. There are no exceptions.

To remain as a private man, one must follow this unwritten law as part of the common law, which is to say the the common law may only be invoked by those who have not sold their soul in to the public, commercial citizen-ship of mammon. This is not to say that the common law is at all a good thing, only that the choice must be made to follow the scriptural law so that the common law recognizes our intent above whatever civil fiction and artificial rights of its legal franchise. As for the rest of the common law, which amounts mostly to the Roman law and to court decisions, presidents, and opinions of the Bar Associations both national and international, we must realize that the common law allows each man his own individual choice to either act religiously (spiritually and morally in privacy under God’s Law) or legally (artificially and in evil under the fictional persona of the state in public show). It’s all about choice. And in this completely corrupted society of nations united in evil under the one world government and “universal” religion, it has become custom to automatically accept this form of voluntary, indentured slavery from birth. The entirety of society, from education to entertainment, is an evil (conspiratorial) design to injure (bring into legal jurisdiction and law) all men. Choice has been turned into a causality, the acceptance of citizenship to the United States merely a causal effect of public education and thus public-mindedness passed on from generation to generation, until the once public knowledge has been turned into the jealously guarded secrets of the secretaries of the state. The greatest secret of the corporate church and state is their purposeful inducement of complete ignorance of both the scriptural and legal systems of law, to the point where today the only way we can identify with the Truth of Reality is to call ourselves by another flattering title with no substance, as “truthers” and “patriots.” But the real Truth is that we cannot take back our country because it was never ours to begin with. We are not its creators and so cannot be its sovereigns. The hardest Truth is that we can only take back our Self, our spiritual identities, by relinquishing our contractual relationship with the district that distrains and distresses us in seizure (Caesar). For the only country that we can ever take back is God’s Country. For to be a citizenship of the United States or of any other legal entity, nation, or State, is to take another god before the One True God of Nature, as is written in scripture (and thus unwritten in the common law). The creator controls. The Highest God wins. And the surname as a legal attachment defeats the authority of the christian name, for in the legal law all is backwards, unnatural, and so the last name is considered as the first name, as the last will and testament of the man acting in agency to a principal legal god of some nation.

—=—

“For all the gods of the nations are idols…”

—Psalms 96:5, KJB

—=—

To be more clear, and as is detailed beyond doubt in my forthcoming works, of which this blog post is merely a minute microcosm of that detailed, multi-volumed digest and encyclopedic reference guide of True knowledge and of self-evidence, a public citizenship is a foreigner in whatever private (several) State he resides in. The word several as legally defined and used in United States law means private or foreign. Thus the United States is a foreign “state” as compared to the several States (private, landholding People). The domicile and artificial existence of any United States person (a legal, public status) is only within the jurisdiction of the United States, and its residence is as a public easement or license to commercially partake in public things and trade. It cannot tread on the private lands of the private People of each private (several) State. For the United States citizen-ship (commercial vessel), all trade is thus interstate commerce, for a United States citizenship only ever exists in a temporary residence within any private State, its “home” and father (family) being only the federal District it is birthed and registered into. And as my works reveal, the climax of this stranger-than-fiction story is simply this: no United States citizen-ship may hold land in perfect or “alodial” title, which means that we are a fictional “people” that are always trespassing on the privately held land of one of the private People (as the privately constituted We, the People), having no land (castle/kingdom/sovereignty) of our own, existing only to serve those private masters through that municipal corporation in public, commercial, interstate franchise. The conspirators created the United States to protect their own private land holdings against us, against their goyim, and have slowly caused mass ignorance amongst the general (goyim) population so that they may, with each new “generation,” cheat (escheat) us all out of our rightful blood inheritance over the lands of our ancestors. Public citizenship under the United States is not the same as being a private State citizen over (as creator/god of) the United States. Public law effects only public persons, and the de facto congress in its commercial hat only creates public law.

This is the legal matrix we have slowly been deceived and tricked into accepting as our false reality, under a false id-entity, and the alternative “truth” and “patriot” movements are there to perpetuate the mythos that all citizens, public and private, national and State, are “equal.” Nothing could be farther from the Truth. For in true Orwellian style, only slaves can be made to be equal. Equality is not equitableness under the Natural Law of God. Equality is a forced “right” required to be respected by each citizen-ship. Equity is the law of persons, not men. The scriptural, moral law is that man must be equitable in his relations with all other men, never acknowledging his persons or flattering titles of that legal realm. This is True wisdom, the hidden mysteries never taught by the church and state, for the Bible is very much opposed to all things legally established, be they fictionally “commercial” or “religious” institutions. And so we may understand why the church is said to be false. The whore of Babylon to which so may prostitute themselves to. There is such a massive difference between “legal” equality (the voluntary slavery of public citizenship) and Natural equity (non-commercial privacy), which is a conformity with the Natural Law (God’s Law). To be public is to be aliened. It is to believe (love) fiction over reality (God’s “Creation”). It is to respect artifice, otherwise known as a license to live in sin through legalized adultery (adulthood). It is to be in the legal tender bosom of mammon.

The reader cannot get caught up in these terms, for this is not a debate over evolution and creationism. These are the conceits of fools, the vomit of ignorant men acting like dogs by doing their master’s bidding according to their public training. God simply means that which is self-evident. We need not personify this self-evident Reality of Nature into a white-bearded man sitting upon some cloud-strewn throne, though it is much easier to tell the story of the moral, scriptural law through such personification and anthropomorphizing of the allegorical parables of the Bible. These stories were told because most of the population was kept in illiteracy, so that the law could be comprehend vulgarly though never mastered. In today’s societies, the masses have been taught to read and write, but the language that is taught causes more confusion that that old system of purposeful illiteracy. And so the mongrel English language is known secretly as the language of illiteracy, also known as “dog-Latin.” For when we speak in this vulgar tongue of the commonalty in the legal jurisdiction, where most terms carry the opposite or opposing definitions to Reality and Nature, the gods of the courts hear only their Roman, Latin meaning, otherwise known as legalese. And so the professors of the English language are at best at the top of the illiteracy chain gang, and at worst are merely choking on their own conceit. To learn the legal language, as well as that language for which the Bible is written in, is not only to learn an entirely new language that appears exactly the same as the one we currently bark like dogs, but is also a completely figurative and metaphoric thought process that must be mastered. It is the fictional representation of reality. It is the matrix code of that which is adversarial (satanic) to God’s Nature and self-evidence, a system built completely upon the deceit of opposites, of false words describing fictional creations of legal gods. As I said before, our individual choices establish our god, and one way or another we all have a god. This is the True nature of choice, and these masters of delusion have managed to place us all into a causality loop where choice is made to appear as the actual illusion. And so we choose without comprehension of the available choice to contract with the fiction. After all, as the story is universally told, the devil may only steal our mind, body, and soul through our own voluntary contract and signature.

If I could impart one thing to the reader today so that this totality of opposition can be made clear between the organized corporations called as “religions” and what the Bible actually is, or rather what the word God (as “Jehovah”) actually means in the Bible, it would be simply this: the Truth is never that which is offensive, only defensive. Jehovah is defined as a verb, not merely an empty noun (name), whereas the word “god” is used in most instances throughout the Bible, thanks to the King James translators, as the words theos, elohim, archon, king, magistrate, prince, and other legal names and flattering titles of false gods. This word magistrate (god) is defined as kings, presidents, governors, mayors, judges, etc. And so the commonalty of goyim have been taught to despise the God of Nature by mistaken identity, as if the God of Nature is the same destructive and murdering force as the gods spoken of in the Bible. In a nutshell, the false doctrines of the corporate church teaches that God (Jehovah) is to be blamed for the actions of man (also named as “god” in the translated scriptures). And what would one expect from a false god than to translate the word king as god? And so in the simplest terms, the Bible can be summed up by merely stating that God represents Reality and Nature. That which is of God is opposed to and opposite of that which is a creation of man, as either physical or conceptual inventions, which includes the legal law of man that stands directly opposed to God, to Nature, and thus to Reality, all of which are merely words that mean the self-evident Truth. Jehovah (God) is defined simply as that which is self-existent, as that which is a self-evident Truth. And so what is of the Real is said to be of the realm of God, also known as “Creation.” All else is of the realm of fiction, also known as satan. The word satan means only that which is adversarial to God, and that which is of satan’s realm is called as art, technology, artifice, fiction, legalism, and any other term of art that represents what is Real, what is self-evident, as some legal fiction. Thus all names, flattering titles, numbers, letters patent, signs, marks, identities, reputations, and any other concept of man’s legal realm can be said to be satanic, as that which is adversarial and opposed to Reality. And so we say it is opposed to God. And so the only way to be free under God with those unalienable rights spoken about in the declaration of independence is to acknowledge the common law, which is to say we must embrace the Bible as our Highest Law – not what the corporate church doctrines state as false law, and not by joining any of man’s inventions of state licensed religions, all of which are false and opposed to the scriptural Law. We must either act the part of a man in and under the Natural Law of God, or we may choose to continue acting satanically (adversarially) to God’s Nature and Law by continuing to embrace that which is opposed to it, the surname, number, and marks of this legal beast system. In this way, that which is the self-evident Truth of Reality, of what exists despite man’s inventions, is the only defense that man has against that jurisdiction of legal fiction and false law of persons. Another way of stating this is simply that God (the self-evident Truth of Nature) and only God can set us free. Only the Highest, self-evident Truth will set you free.

But in the legal realm, all that is a confirmed and ratified lie is the established and ordained “truth,” ordained by the opinions and decisions of the gods of the courts. In the realm of the adversaries, God (self-evident Truth) and Nature are the enemy. God is offensive to the legal gods, which is why they separated their commercial state from their moral church. Only when man’s religious actions are placed Higher and supra to the pretended authority of the legally combined church and state state can man claim unalienable rights. This is the self-evident Truth that is also alluded to in the so-called declaration of independence. It is a Truth that only protects those private men who reserved all their rights in privacy from their own legal creation of that incorporation of the United States. All creations of the congress of those private gods of the several States united are placed into this holding corporation called as the district of Caesar (seizure). And so the moral of the story, the moral of the scriptures bears only one True and self-evident interpretation, which is that only that which is self-evident may set you free. Only God may set you free. Respect only of God’s Law of Nature and no other false doctrine or legal system may set you free. And our only defense as men of God is the self evidence not only of Nature, but of our True Selves. To exist without name, title, number, and mark, which is to say without any form of false legal identity, is our only defense. All other “truths” that are based on lies and legal fictions are offensive to our very Nature.

You know when the Truth presents Itself because It is undeniable no matter how hard we try, generally causing pain to our ego, as that which protects our id, the false legal id-entity that controls us mentally through the artifice of man’s law and fiction. The self-evidence of God’s Nature of Reality eats away at all fallacy and utterly destroys the ego and false-flattering titles of the ignorant fools posing as info-wariers and patriotic truthers! This is the beauty of that which is in self-evidence, the only Truth that actually exists in Nature. And it is the unveiling of this self-evidence that has become my life’s work, no matter how much it hurts.

If the reader chooses to learn these self-evident and sourced Truths as I have researched, fully sourced, and represented in this and other posts and in my upcoming works, then please do so in the Pure intent of Love and Charity for which they are offered. And please oh please dispute them with anything other than these false, second and third-hand, unenlightened, false prophets and liars. Only what is Source is self-evident. At the very least, seeing this utterly complete and reenforced lie played out by so many parrots should knock that flattering title of “truth” completely out of the minds of those who fall for this consensus-based news of the “truth” of protected lies. The substance of what is Truth is not a badge, not an empty name, it is a mentality, a verb of action as that which is in self-existence without any proof of concept or invention. Only artificial things need be named and proven to exist, for only the artifice is not self-evident. Life never needs proven. Nature never needs proven. Reality never needs proven. We either sacrifice ourselves to that which is self-evident (otherwise known as the Truth God’s Creation) or we submit ourselves to these false gods, the creators of mythology and darkness. Do your own research and stop listening to these delusional quacks. Only you can discover, recognize, and respect alone what is self-evident, and only through actual source-based research will you ever stop being a fool choking on your own conceit and love of what is the big lie, the grand delusion.

The Real, spiritual enlightenment is that the Truth will always lead one back to one’s True Self as we realize that our actual Selves have been metaphorically stolen and repurposed into fictional personas of the districted nations of Caesar. Our Inner Being is thus personified into the artifice, our false id-entity assigned at birth, and our ego formed and perfected by the time we start acting in adulthood as that artificial persona of the nation, justifying our false existence and patriotically guarding our perceived but empty stake (cross) in mammon. After all, who wants to take responsibility for their own actions nowadays? Nope, it has to be the bankers, the politicians, the priests, and the devil. We can just get insurance and kill by license.

Yet all of these are fictions…

—=—

“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit…”

“The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools. As he that bindeth a stone in a sling, so is he that giveth honour to a fool. As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouth of fools…”

“As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly. Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope of a fool than of him.”

—Proverbs 26: 4-5, 7-9, 11-12 KJB

—=—

To hear these shepherds of darkness herd their sheep even as they insult the “herd mentality” is the ultimate insult to anyone who sees through their proclaimed “truths.” To hear the slave-masters complain about their slaves even as they fill their heads with crap is the most pathetic part about this artifice, for then the sheep of these shepherds go out and complain about everyone else and never face their own self-evident responsibilities. Instead of the enlightenment of the individual through knowledge and understanding of their own place in God’s Nature and binding Law, the herd is driven further into the depths of patriotic fervor in respect and protectionism (zionism) for their pirate captors, convinced in fixing and taking back something that was never theirs in the first place and that doesn’t exist in Nature, seeking a status that is not of Reality and that can only be attained through submission to the idea that man and man alone is as god and sovereign. All legal (artificial) rights come from the king, from the private families and bloodline of “the People” who created this false system of mammon. And all nations are now being united into the “United Nations” just as all states were united into the “United States.” The parabolic warnings of the Bible are coming to fruition even as you read this.

And so let us return to the mythos surrounding the central banks of all nations, as they now stand under the World Bank of that United Nations. For the story of the Fed is only just beginning…

Edward Flaherty, an academic economist and Ph.D. in the Department of Economics at the College of Charleston, S.C., called out G. Edward Griffin’s description of the secret meeting on Jekyll Island as “conspiratorial”, “amateurish”, and “suspect”. I couldn’t agree more, and have certainly reported it as so. To cut through the rhetoric presented by Griffen in order to find the verifiable facts is difficult at best, and any work that cannot stand on its own legitimacy and source material should only be considered as what it is, Roman adversaria; the opposite of that which is self-evident.

As with all research, verify what this man has said as well. Never take myself or anyone else at their second-hand word. The difference between shock jocks and myself is that I genuinely mean it when I say do your own research and to get off of your ass and go to the correct and only Real sources, and stop listening to these conceited fools. And never take anyone’s word without so much inner consideration, for the only way to obtain True knowledge and understanding is through constant, continuous consideration, like tossing a salad of information in your mind until all the bullshit is filtered away and only Source remains, sense without nonsense, Truth without mystery. Mistakes are easy to make with friends and leaders like these. So many lies about the Fed are so prevalent and ingrained within the patriot mythos that some even worked their way into Flaherty’s own pontifications, just as they have in my own works over so many years. My early work was quite susceptible to this monkey dung flung so indiscriminately and without care or awareness of source.

Not ironically, my work is hardly ever reposted elsewhere. No one is offering me a writing job or new radio hosting gig because no one can sell the actual Truth. you can’t sell gold when I call bullshit on its valuation and link to mammon with its more unpopular nickname of “nation killer.” No one wants to hear the story of the golden calf of the scriptural parables, where slaves of the old system combined their gold so that they could purchase themselves into the new slave system, which is exactly the reason quoted by all gold salesmen to hoard gold. They simply can’t sell anything that depends on lies and obfuscations of the parabolic scriptural teachings for its promotion. It’s as if the former gold confiscation didn’t happen, as if somehow gold has some sex-magick appeal and mystical protection that somehow makes it anything more that a tool of mammon, a tool of enslavement, and a tool of depravity that causes men to value gold more than Life, God, and Nature itself. To the corrupted mind, everything in God’s Nature can be purchased (conquered) with money in whatever form it is respected. This is the epitome of the justification for slavery, for animal and child abuse, for pollution, and for genetically modified foods, and for so many other crimes against nature that are excused by license and by monetary compensation.

To be clear, I no longer hold any sympathy for the devil. By this I mean that, by exposing these liars and their lies as the devils they are, I seek only to break the hypnotic spell they have over their listeners and readers, and hopefully over their very own Selves, and in turn wish only to expose them to same pain and suffering caused by the destructive power of their own hypnotic but false suggestions. I seek not to make fools of anyone, for as christ said I am not here to judge anyone, but only to set them on the correct course so that their final judgement and place may be secured. We don’t realize that to be in legal citizenship is to be pre-judged (doomed) at birth. We never quite understand that before we set foot in any jurisdiction and court of the gods that created our strawman (legal person/status) we have already been pre-judged, and that a plea (prayer) to that judicial god of “innocent” is not an option. There is no innocence in the legal realm. Only a man responsible for his own actions can account himself as innocent, his only judge the self-evidence of God’s Law of Nature and duty to It. Heaven awaits us all, for heaven is merely that which is untouched by man’s fictions, the Nature of God’s Creation. Citizenship is scripturally and legally speaking a spiritual death, a mort-gage (dead pledge) in mort-main (dead hands), and the jurisdiction of the United States is nicknamed as hell. The district and jurisdiction of the United States is an open-air debtor’s prison, make no mistake about it. And only the scriptural path walked by christ and manifested through our own actions may take us out of that fictional, districted jurisdiction.

HELL – The name formerly given to a place under the exchequer chamber, where the king’s debtors were confined.(Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition)

—=—

Welcome to the new age, my friends. For the franchise of hell is going global. A world of debtors is being created. For we must remember that all debt in whatever form it presents itself is a legal obligation that must be performed in legal form, a legal person (status), and so all debt is a performance debt. All debtors of the nations united under one kingdom of hell on earth must act the parts assigned and respected by them, as the world citizenship (debt obligation) of this United Nations construct and legal matrix rears its ugly head.

And what about an apology, and admission of tomfoolery?

To not verify the existence of an ending 100-year charter is inexcusable, and to promote it knowingly without verification and without apology for so many past lies and predictions should cause his media empire to fall just as much as any mainstream outlet. No apology or corrections were publicly submitted by Susanne Posel, Alex Jones, James Corbett, G. Edward Griffen, or any other con artist or useful idiot out there to my knowledge at the time of this writing, even after so many outlets have reposted and supported their rhetoric and works.

I want to be clear here that no one in their right mind should for one second consider that these agents of the planned apocalypse like Alex Jones are not aware of these fictions they sell as reality. For again we are deceived into following these false prophets of artificial, non-self-evidnet information even in our understanding of what the word apocalypse actually means.

—=—

“The Masons hold their grand festival on the day of St. John, not knowing that therein they merely signify the fish-god Oannes, the first Hermes and the first founder of the Mysteries, the first messenger to whom the Apocalypse was given, and whom they ignorantly confound with the fabulous author of the common Apocalypse. The sun is then (midsummer day) in its greatest altitude. In this the Naros is commemorated.”

—Book of Enoch (vol. ii., p. 154)

—=—

“The miter is derived directly from the miters of the ancient pagan fish-god Dagon and the goddess Cybele. The papal miter represents the head of Dagon with an open mouth, which is the reason for the pointed shape and split top.”

—Ruben Joseph, excerpt from: ‘Why Are The Young People Leaving The Church ’

—=—

“In their veneration and worship of Dagon, the high priest of paganism would actually put on a garment that had been created from a huge fish… The head of the fish formed a mitre above that of the old man, while its scaly, fan-like tail fell as a cloak behind, leaving the human limbs and feet exposed.”

— Austen Henry Layard, excerpt from: ‘Nineveh and Babylon’

—=—

“The most prominent form of worship in Babylon was dedicated to Dagon, later known as Ichthys, or the fish. In Chaldean times, the head of the church was the representative of Dagon,he was considered to be infallible, and was addressed as ‘Your Holiness’. Nations subdued by Babylon had to kiss the ring and slipper of the Babylonian god-king. The same powers and the same titles are claimed to this day by the Dalai Lama of Buddhism, and the Pope. Moreover, the vestments of paganism,the fish mitre and robes of the priests of Dagon are worn by the Catholic bishops, cardinals and popes. Ea Enki, who is a God of Sumerian (Enki) and Babylonian (Ea) mythology… was a water god who was half man, half fish hybrid. In Greek mythology, Ea was known as Oannes… It is believed that, in the daytime, this deity would emerge from the water and was responsible for teaching art, science and writing to the human race.”

—Mary E. Walsh, excerpt from: ’Wine of Roman Babylon’

—=—

“At first they led a somewhat wretched existence and lived without rule after the manner of beasts. But, in the first year after the flood appeared an animal endowed with human reason, named Oannes, who rose from out of the Erythian Sea, at the point where it borders Babylonia. He had the whole body of a fish, but above his fish’s head he had another head which was that of a man, and human feet emerged from beneath his fish’s tail. He had a human voice, and an image of him is preserved unto this day. He passed the day in the midst of men without taking food; he taught them the use of letters, sciences and arts of all kinds.He taught them to construct cities, to found temples, to compile laws, and explained to them the principles of geometrical knowledge.He made them distinguish the seeds of the earth, and showed them how to collect the fruits; in shorthe instructed them in everything which could tend to soften human manners and humanize their laws.From that time nothing material has been added by way of improvement to his instructions. And when the sun set, this being Oannes, retired again into the sea, for he was amphibious.”

—Writings of Berossus, a 3rd century Babylonian priest

—=—

If hell is that which is adversarial to the Nature of Reality and self-evident Truth, then what in Heaven’s name can I possibly call this “truth” movement but one of the layers of that hell, existing somewhere between Fox News, Edward Bernays, Alex Jones, and the Pope?

We are taught that the apocalypse is a bad thing. But what does this word actually mean, and why would such a propagandist machine of the combined church and state be so hell-bent on obfuscating its True and self-evident meaning? Perhaps a better question is to ask what event can possibly destroy this empire built by the hands of men at the expense of all other men and through the legal fiction of false reality?

There is only one answer. It is the thing most feared by the keepers of the mysteries, of those who hide under the rose. And that is simply True knowledge.

APOCALYPSE – noun – apoc’alyps. [Gr. from to disclose; and to cover.] Revelation; discovery; disclosure. The name of a book of the New Testament, containing many discoveries or predictions respecting the future state of Christianity, written by St. John, in Patmos, near the close of the first century.(–Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828)

REVELATION – noun – [Latin revelatus, revelo. See Reveal.] 1. The act of disclosing or discovering to others what was before unknown to them; appropriately, the disclosure or communication of truth to men by God himself, or by his authorized agents, the prophets and apostles.How that by revelation he made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words. Ephesians 3:3. 2 Corinthians 12:1. 2. That which is revealed; appropriately, the sacred truths which God has communicated to man for his instruction and direction. The revelations of God are contained in the Old and New Testament. 3. The Apocalypse; the last book of the sacred canon, containing the prophecies of St. John.(–Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828)

OCCULT – adjective – [Latin occultus, occulo; ob and celo, to conceal.] – Hidden from the eye or understanding; invisible; secret; unknown; undiscovered; undetected; as the occult qualities of matter. The occult sciences are magic, necromancy, etc. Occult lines, in geometry, are such as are drawn with the compasses or a pencil, and are scarcely visible. (–Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828)

OCCULTATION – noun – [Latin occultatio.] 1. A hiding; also, the time a star or planet is hid from our sight, when eclipsed by the interposition of the body of a planet. 2. In astronomy, the hiding of a star or planet from our sight, by passing behind some other of the heavenly bodies. (–Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828)

OCCULTNESS – noun – The state of being concealed from view; secretness. (–Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828)

HID, HIDAGE – noun – [from hide, a quantity of land.] An extraordinary TAX formerly paid to the kings of England for every hide of land.(–Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828)

—=—

The whole plan, the entirety of design of these false gods of the church and state and United Nations is to cause in the minds of man a false revelation, a false apocalypse. By passing of fiction and lies as True knowledge, all of man can be manipulated and ushered into this new age system of mammon. For imagine the power of mammon when its main tool becomes cashless! This false sensationalism of unity of all nations and of all religions is ludicrous, just as the notion that the Jewish and christian Laws (the New and Old) can be practiced harmoniously together, that the Christian gentile and the Talmudic Jew can live together in equitableness when the very purpose of any nation is to create a multitude of goyim. That 1,000’s of world religions can be made into one authority under one false god and church over one false union of states by the power of legal status (world citizenship) is the final solution. For legal, religious freedom (franchise) has nothing to do with our individual actions according to our moral law, it only applies to what we think, not what we do. Expression of religion and moral law is literally illegal in a legal state.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION – Embraces the concept offreedom to believe and freedom to act, the first of which(belief)is absolute,but the second of which(action)remains SUBJECT TO REGULATION for protection of society. (Black4)

—=—

Freedom of moral thought, but not freedom to act upon that conscious moral thought… This is what legal freedom is when defined by a legal corporation called government. This is not Natural freedom under God. This is tyranny named (noun) as “freedom.” Legal freedom is only a franchise of fictional persons. Governments cannot control in totality your thought processes, only your actions (anti-pro-verb). Specifically, we must recognize absolutely that the purpose of the legal law is to prevent man from acting upon his moral thoughts.

—=—

“It’s impossible to have religious freedom in any nation where churches are licensed to the government.”

“The framers of our Constitution meant we were to have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.”

—Billy Graham

—=—

“No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.”

—Mark 3: 27, KJB

—=—

The strawman, as the legal, national citizen-ship is that bond. Our house is not our own. Our use of that artificial legal status ensures our legal performance against God, against the scriptural law as part of the common law. Our spiritual choice is nullified, though we can quit claiming to be that fictional person (i.e. adulterer/sinner) at any time we choose. The contractual relationship destroys all other considerations of Law. And the freedom of religion in legal terms is of course that which opposed to freedom of choice, for though we may not be punished for our thoughts (yet), we may and will be punished as conspirators against this legal system of government for acting upon our religious, moral thoughts, for our franchise (freedom) is false and only exists in the hell that is this open-air-prison and jurisdiction of the nations. Simply stated, the property of any United States public citizenship is not the property of the man acting in its agency. All property is registered in the strawman name, the legal fiction person, which is property of government. Thus no public man is strong. All men are in the bond of surety to their assigned legal entity of birth registration, and so all public men’s houses are despoiled by their very nature and tax (registration). This is the legal pirate cove that is the United States municipal corporation. Its sole purpose is to escheat (steal) all that is Real, from Land to personal property, away from the goyim born of the nations so that no matter where we go we are always in trespass upon the lands of the “sovereignty.” We know we are not sovereign in the view of the law because we must produce an artificial will so as to pass on out imperfect titles to property and pay a death or orphan tax on it. The law automatically recognizes the bloodline heirs of a private citizen of any State.

In the “truth” and “patriot” movements we have been trained to embrace this word “sovereignty” by name without realizing its dualistic nature. As perhaps the most misunderstood legal term out there, we mistake the Highest Law and authority of the Sovereignty of God with that of the kingdoms that claim legal, artificial “sovereignty” in name only over that of all other men. But we must understand that sovereignty cannot exist except under the doctrine of master and servant. Sovereignty is pointless without subjects or slaves beneath you. In other words, if all men were sovereign then no man would be, just as no man is free until all men are free. This totality of Natural Sovereignty under God’s Law is the only Real Sovereignty, and it signifies only that all men have abandoned all artifice and legal fiction so as to obey only the Nature and Duty of the negative, Natural Law. This state of being is heaven on earth. It is also paradox, for men will always seek to enslave or trick other men in order to cause themselves ease and vagrancy of that Highest Duty. The false artifice of sovereign nations, the gods of which are legally created titles as idols, created these nations not to free men but to publicly ensnare them in legal protectionism of their own private estates. And the United Nations and its peace-keeping force of mercenary goyim in uni-form are being assembled to protect this order of nations united to protect these private, legally sovereign bloodlines. It is not that their blood is at all special, only that it is legally recognized and not corrupted in attainder like the public masses of citizenships of the idolatrous nations. Blood and Land are intricately connected, and the absence of blood consideration is the highest goal of these pirates, so that they may overcome otherwise strong men and bind their lands into their own private estates while their tenants are none the wiser. They are simply cheaters, the root word of escheat. Their false systems of legal sovereignty are directly opposed to the scriptural Law. This sovereignty is false, a mere slave system of voluntary compliance by those in performance debt to these masters under the law of agency. It’s not Real. It’s not spiritual in any way. It is merely a modern caste system based on the old feudal state that has been renamed and reorganized, the only difference being that it is completely without honor and kept incredibly under the rose. The artificial sovereignty of the King has been replaced by the artificial sovereignty of the bloodline of the private “People.” And so we are caused to believe in the false truth that through legal means we may somehow figure out this legal system and become part of the sovereignty, which is to say become the slave-master instead of the slave. This is the strong delusion of the gods.

—=—

“We have stricken the (slave) shackles from four million human beings and brought all laborers to a common level not so much by the elevation of former slaves as by practically reducing the whole working population,white and black, to a condition of SERFDOM. While boasting of our noble deeds, we are careful to conceal the ugly fact that BY AN INEQUITOUS MONEY SYSTEM we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery.”

–Horace Greeley (1811-1872), founder of the ‘The New-Yorker’ and ‘New York Tribune’ newspapers, speaking on post-civil war or ‘14th amendment’ citizenship

—=—

“It is impossible to enslave, mentally or socially, a bible-reading people.The principles of the bible are the groundwork of human freedom.”

Notice that these quotes are by the same elitist man, one of the few good ones perhaps.

—=—

“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed… No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”

–Preface, 1828 Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language

—=—

Of course public education is designed to cause public-mindedness, and only a private man may benefit from that scriptural knowledge. As the mass of illiterates that is the general goy population collectively cheer the efforts of their private masters to eradicate the Bible scriptures from public schools, they seal their own fate and that of their future heirs into a system of total corruption and spiritual death in mammon. By corrupting each denomination of corporate churches, all of which claim the Bible as their reason for their legal existence, the public is made to despise the Bible instead of recognizing that this system of universally “Christian” churches in name and flattering title only were never intended to teach or decipher what the Bible actually instructs. The private priest class alone may have revelation (knowledge) of scripture, never the commonalty of illiterate followers of false gods. The English language (as dog-Latin) ensures that even the very fact of our own collective illiteracy is hidden behind the very words of that common (public) language spoken. Like dog’s barking at their masters, the intent of our words is taken only in their dualistic, adversarial, Latinized (Romanized) versions so that everything we say carries the opposite meaning. Every respected legal name (noun) destroys the True Nature of the Reality that name represents as a legal fiction.

But I digress…

Just what is this protective agency of that fish-god Pope’s will as a motto proprio and what does it have to do with the other central banks of all the nations?

Let us examine, from the Vatican’s own website, just what is this Financial Intelligence Authority:

—=—

THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION AUTHORITY

The Financial Information Authority (Autorità di Informazione Finanaziaria – AIF), is the competent authority of the Holy See/Vatican City State for fighting money-laundering and financing of terrorism. In that capacity, the AIF carries out the tasks of financial intelligence unit and supervisor, both for prudential purposes, and the prevention and countering of money-laundering and financing of terrorism.

Established by Pope Benedict XVI with the Apostolic Letter in form of “Motu Proprio” of 30 December 2010, AIF’s institutional mandate has been consolidated by means of the Apostolic Letter in form of“Motu Proprio“by Pope Francis on 8 August 2013, which assigns to the AIF the role of prudential supervision, and by means of the Apostolic Letter in form of “Motu Proprio” by Pope Francis on 15 November 2013, which approved the new Statutes. The AIF carries out its institutional activity according to the Vatican Law n. XVIII of 8 October 2013.

The AIF is a member of the Egmont Group,the GLOBAL NETWORK of financial intelligence units, and, so far, has stipulated Memoranda of Understanding with the financial intelligence units of various Countries for the purposes of COLLABORATION and exchange of information, like,inter alia, Albania, Australia, Argentine, Belgium, Cyprus, Cuba, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Romania, San Marino, Spain, Slovenia, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States of America.

For the benefit of the reader that is seldom taught the legal meanings of words, this term of the legal art understanding does not simply mean comprehension. To understand anything in legal terms is to stand under the authority of that thing, artificial as it may be, and to be in harmonious agreement with another law just as any signature on any contract expresses an under-standing to both the words of that contract and to all laws and governmental statutes that protect and secure that contractual situation between “persons.” And so the reader, as a public “citizen-ship” of any nation, should know here that with every signature we individually make in legal persona we are agreeing to every single public law created by congress and by its “independent agencies” of government, including the Federal Reserve and other central banking institutions and non-governmental (NGO) associations and institutions hired and respected by congress. No man is bound by any legal authority or law without his voluntary use of its status in legal persona. Whatever I do as “Clint Richardson” is as an agent of its creator and principal, the United States district (Caesar). This is the opposite of that state of free liberty under the Natural (God’s) Law spoken of by those Masonic founders in their federalist papers and over-parroted quotes. A national citizen is not a citizen of any private State. Nothing public is private. A citizenship is very much like the Federal Reserve, having quite limited independence within the jurisdiction (open-air prison) of United States borders, but having no actual freedom but that which is granted to it in legal franchise. A public person is not a free man, for a person is never a man, only a recreated fiction of law. A form without substance. To act in person is to act as the property of another. And the persons (ships) of all nations, like the rental cars of some rental car agency, are all bound to this international, globalist law of mammon. Whether you believe in gods or not, he who creates controls as a god. The creator of “Clint Richardson” is certainly not God, it is the United States district (bank). What is unnatural can never invoke what is natural. What is a creation of man and his artful law cannot claim the law of God and of Nature. And what is written in the Declaration of Independence is for Real men of God, not artificial persons created by governments. Only those who reserve all rights from the nation privately stand in True Liberty and Natural Freedom. This confusion between what is Real and what is fiction is the essence of that system of slavery that holds us all in its legal matrix.

We mustn’t forget three things…

True “christianity” is part of the common law, unwritten and unenforceable, and has no place in the jurisdiction of the United States, only outside of it in private.

The Bible bestows upon every man a choice, to face Reality (God) or exist falsely in the artificial, flattering titles of legal fiction. Thus its purpose as part of the common law is self-evident, and is used by the most evil of men to kill our highest spiritual power and will through ignorance of it.

The word legal translates to that which is opposed to God, as the fictional art constituted over Nature.

If these three principals of law would be under-stood, then what man in legal citizenship under Caesar (district) would possibly continue in such a false existence? What man would continue to exist falsely in such a chimeric, false persona as this, knowing that this false existence is the realm and jurisdiction of a global system united in support and pursuit of the great delusions of mammon?

The answer, I’m afraid, is most men.

I am resigned to this notion. I accept it for what it is. And I am only writing here today that I might reach the remainder, the remnant, the seekers of self-evidence in all things as the Only Truth despite the pain of such self-evidence. You are who I seek. We must find each other, overcome, and remove ourselves from this fiction of religion, governments, and most of all money. This is my life’s goal and my works will be solely for its purpose and end.

This global system of mammon and these protection agencies that have been set up in all the key nations united in preserving this system of debt slavery is wholly supported by the Pope and thus by that Crown corporation of the Vatican. This false “Christ” (falsely anointed) head of the church and state of the world has decreed that in this den of thieves we call the banking system of the world, there must be a united effort to protect that system as the asset of the church and its city-State. This, of course, is self-evident. The actions and decrees of this and former Popes cannot be denied, and no apologist can possibly disconnect this intent from the love of money in mammon. No one can call this anything but what it self-evidently is, a protection racket against the public, legal realm instituted to ensure the debt of all nations to their central banks and of each individual “person” to the nations that created that status. To be in (under) citizen-ship is to be a debtor, to be contracted into a performance debt. A puppet on strings.

For those to whom this is a new concept, this separation of the self into a legal id-entity that removes us from Nature and causes us to act as some thing we are not, all you need to know is that whatever law you follow depends on the state of being of your Self. If you can be convinced, especially from birth and through public education and media entertainment, to act not as your True and responsible Self but as the fictional legal self of another’s persona (legal status), then nothing you possess or own is yours. Not your language, not your law, not your God, and not your stuff. All that is registered to that fictional self (citizen-ship) as a vessel of commerce of the Holy See is property of its creator (god). The creator controls, and whatever is conquered (purchased) with the patented creation of another, namely the money of each nation’s central bank, is thus the property of the creator of that money that its subjects (voluntary slaves) use in the agency of its franchise (person). This is legal, political freedom. Nothing natural about it. And this franchise of freedom and independence is what has so confounded us, causing us to believe ourselves to be as free as we believe the Federal Reserve to be. And just because there is no overlord (or congress Member) watching every move we make in our franchise of independent movement (legal freedom) throughout this commercial maze and open-air prison of jurisdiction while we act in its legal persona, we mistakenly call this as the Pure Freedom of privacy. The Fed is as private as any citizen-ship is, which is to say that only an idiot would believe, based on actual source and law, that either one of these is free of government (legal control).

I have yet to find a better definition and description of these facts than that of William C Anderson’s Dictionary of Law from 1889. Not only does he reveal the ultimate difference and more accurately the total opposition between the True and false corporate flattering title of the typical citizenship as a “Christian” in name only and without works, we also can see that when it comes to the judicial function of the administrative courts and justices (magistrate gods) we pray (plead) to for forgiveness and salvation, the Bible or for that matter any written or unwritten moral law or compass is totally absent in all decisions and opinions of these public courts. They are Godless, which means that no man may ever stand in self-evidence nor with unalienable rights under God (Natural Law). To be perfectly clear, these legal courts can only see legal things. Man must appear in the person of the state (district and circuit jurisdiction of Caesar) in order to be heard by that god of fiction. The court jurisdiction is for persons, not men. Only persons and their agents (attorneys) may be heard. A man of God is not welcome in these places, and are Barred from that system of pretended justice in commerce. Only things of mammon may apply and be artificially seen and remedied. And so all of you so-called “Christians” who follow in the footsteps of your legal person, your strawman, instead of following in the footsteps of christ, you will be judged by men as your gods because your person is pre-judged (doomed) at birth. You are acting and appearing as that which you are not, and you will be treated accordingly. You will be considered only as a legal entity that cannot be harmed, for fiction cannot be Naturally harmed.

This is not religion, damn it! This is reality. Organized religion is exclusively reserved for the weak-minded. Acting religiously is only for those of strong will and Pure character and intent, the remnant as it were, the true nonconformists. For the following of christ is not conformity to any thing, it is only the embracing of and acknowledgement of that which is self-evident Truth. To act religiously or spiritually is only the abandonment of all artifice and fiction. It is Life.

I want you to read this again:

CHRISTIANITY – The system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ; the religion founded by Christ. Christianity is said to be part of the common law. “Christianity is parcel of the laws of England; and, therefore, to reproach the Christian religion is to speak in subversion of the law.” “The essential principles of natural religion” and “of revealed religion, are a part of the common law, so that any person reviling or subverting or ridiculing them may be prosecuted at common law.” “The true sense of the maxim is that the law will not permit the essential principles of revealed religion to be ridiculed and reviled.” Christianity is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania in the qualified sense that its divine origin and truth are admitted, and therefore it is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public. Not Christianity founded upon any particular religious tenets;but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men. The maxim does not mean that Christianity is an established religion; nor that its precepts,by force of their own authority, form part of our system of municipal law; nor that the courts may base their judgments upon the Bible; nor that religious duties may be penally enforced; nor that legal discrimination in favor of Christianity is allowed. The best features of the common law, especially those which regard the family and social relations, if not derived from, have at least been improved and strengthened by, the prevailing religion and the teachings of its sacred Book. But the law does not attempt to enforce the precepts of Christianity on the ground of their sacred character or divine origin. Some of those precepts, though we may admit their continual and universal obligation,we must nevertheless recognize as being incapable of enforcement by human laws. Those precepts, moreover, affect the heart,and address themselves to the conscience;while the laws of the state can regard the outward conduct only: for which reasons CHRISTIANITY IS NOT A PART OF THE LAW OF THE LAND IN ANY SENCE WHICH ENTITLES THE COURTS TO TAKE NOTICE OF AND BASE THEIR JUDGEMENTS UPON IT, except so far they can find that its precepts and principles have been incorporated in and made a component part of the law of the State. The maxim can have no reference to the law of the National government,SINCE THE SOURCES OF THAT LAW ARE THE CONSTITUTION, TREATIES, AND ACTS OF CONGRESS. (–William C. Anderson’s Dictionary of Law, 1889)

–=–

This single brilliant discourse utterly destroys the false “patriot” and “truther” movement in one fail swoop, for whenever the origin and foundation of any opinion is false, the resulting occurrence of opinionated rhetoric based on nothing but a false legal religion and dialectic (logic) is all that manifests. What you have just read is the very definition of the separation of church and state, which is to say the separation of men from their religion and into a purely legal society. As long as the choice is available in the common law, the slave-state (nation) may exist as a district (seizure, distress, distraint) upon those men. The law of man may rule over any man who abandons God and accepts the idolatrous nation as his magistracy (god). And so we may either act in the spirit of our religious Self or we may act in the false persona of some nation. Either way we will have a god. To be without a nation is to be under God (Jehovah) in the Reality of Nature. This is considered a self-evident Truth, and belief in God is certainly no requirement for a self-evident Truth to Exist. The word Jehovah is defined as self-existence, which is that which is self-evident or the Whole Oneness of Nature (Creation). Man is, whether he likes or admits it or not, part of that Oneness. But its Highest law and protections may only manifest through his or her individual actions or works. The second we take upon our True Selves the name, number, trade-mark, and flattering title of another, we loose our connection to Nature and Its Law and must accept the contracted dis-ease that is required by our respect of false legal authority. Whatever we do, there is some god above us. And even the false notion of sovereignty requires a Higher Law and also respect of the slave system of legal law in some nation. For no man may be sovereign without slaves beneath him. And no man may be free until all men are free. Sovereignty is nothing more and nothing less than a legal status, legal being opposed to God, as the flattering titles of pretenders. They are the creators of church and state. They are the controllers. The land lords. The gods.

—=—

“For all the gods of the nations are idols…”

—Psalms 96:5, KJB

—=—

Thanks to the organized musings and purposeful misdirection of Alex Jones and those who emulate his fear campaigns and corporate business model in the false and empty name of “truth,” we continue to live in the lie designed for us while patriotically supporting the very nation that designed it. We suffer from the worst kind of Stockholm Syndrome imaginable. And our denomination of legalized religion merely solidifies that false nature and causes us to respect the legal state, or that which is opposed to God as the self-evident Reality of Nature and Its undeniable Truth.

To be clear, no subject will ever change this government or its system. We are not its creator nor its controller. The Jones patriot model invites everything but the correct course of action, which as the Bible instructs is to simply and utterly “leave her,” to leave the fictional cities and jurisdictions by overcoming their fictions of law by following by christ’s example. While the church preaches the false prophesy of God or Christ returning from the dead, the reality of the Bible scripture is that christ can only manifest through the actions of man acting christ-like. The spirit of God’s Law is personified as christ, and the spirit of man may only be recognized and protected by his actions thereof. Again, this is not some membership to some corporation posing as a “religion,” this is a Real Life lived only in the True Nature of Reality.

The fool in his own conceit and flattering legal title of “Christian” may be equally offended by this scriptural Truth as he who purports to carry the false, flattering title of “atheist” or “anarchist.” Yet all of these men acting pretending such false identities carry their person in the form of a driver’s license, a passport, a credit or debit ATM card, and every other sign and trade-mark of the voluntary slavery of citizenship. Trade merely means commerce, and its mark is our use of its name and “consumer protections” in legal trade under a national system of debt money in mammon. Our signature on any contract is the highest legal sign of our individual spiritual death and civil, artificial life.

—=—

“An addition [to a name] proves or shows minority or inferiority.”

— Additio probat minoritatem. (Black4)

—=—

“When a man is made a spiritual peer he loses his surname; when a temporal, his Christian name.”

—Jonathan Swift, Thoughts on various subjects, moral & diverting

—=—

“The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to agencies of government.”

—City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

—=—

You see, the problem isn’t the vulgar belief in the doctrines of man’s religion, it is a lack of religious, moral action against evil and artifice by otherwise strong men who are confused and bound by legal fiction and disinformation. The moral Law is not some actor’s script that is practiced like an attorney practices law or a doctor practices medicine, for these are all false and flattering titles. The path of christ is the example never followed by the flatteringly entitled “Christians” because they are trained from birth to love and respect not God but the very “law of the land” that is opposed to God. The churches are legal corporations bound under the legal state and its fictional (antichrist, anti-God, anti-Nature) law, and are therefore forced to respect the legal law and its government for their very legal existence! To be a member of a religion is not to be or act religiously. For the “Christian” is as much an empty flattering title as the “atheist” the second we touch money and participate in the legal system of contract (devilry) and mammon. Only our actions, our works, define who and what our Self is and which god it subscribes to in surety and bond. A promise (vow) to God is opposed to an oath to government in abuse of God’s name. A pledge to fiction is a blasphemy to God, a rejection of Reality and embracing of the artifice of legal, adversarial (satanic) things. The bullshit spouted by the corporate church prevents us from contemplating this notions as anything other than religious gobbilygook, and yet these tenants are the very foundation of the law. The deception is respectably complete, for the actions of a religious man are mistaken for the false show of a scripturally ignorant member of a legally incorporated religion. Our law can never be both legal and spiritual, for these laws are purposefully opposed to one another, just as our actual Being in True religion can never be based on any of the false doctrines of corporations in name only. For as with any other source, the Bible is completely ignored in all legal settings, including so-called “Christian” churches. No man in his right mind and with due diligence of the scriptures would lay a hand on any form of money, would ever attend or claim membership to any state or religion by any name, and would never accept these magistrates (gods) and archons such as the pope, the kings and queens, and the presidents of municipal corporations such as Washington D.C. as their law-makers.

RELIGIOUS MEN – Such as entered into some monastery or convent. In old English deeds, the vendee was often restrained from aliening to “Jews or religious men” lest the lands should fall into mortmain(dead hands).Religious men were CIVILLY DEAD. (Black1)

RELIGIOUS USE – See CHARITABLE USES. (Black1)

—=—

What is the cure for money and debt to mammon? Pure and utter charity. The doing of all things without valuation, without credit or debt, and without expectation of anything in return for our actions. This is the opposing force, the absolute Love that must always be the goal of all our actions. This is the basis of the moral, scriptural law. This is the choice we must choose, for all other roads lead to Rome. This is the best example of self-evident Truth. It can only be denied if we respect and fear fiction over Reality.

And yet here we are, stuck in the middle of financial tyranny that can only exist if men have faith in the existence and valuation of money, the god of mammon. We have accepted the artifice as Real and denied the God of Nature. We have denied Reality and placed monetary value on everything Real, including our Selves. And this is the true definition of evil, its root being the false-valuation of Life itself as something that can be conquered (purchased) by money. For mammon is not money, money is only a tool thereof. The true evil is valuation, the estimation and consideration of all things not by their priceless Nature but by its price in fiat currency and debt (the lie that is “credit”). We no longer act as men but as false, legal personas. Slaves.

Though all things can be valued in money, money is valued in nothing at all. To call this as the greatest lie of that which is satanic (adversarial) to God and Nature is the understatement of the age. And the pope now wishes to protect that system of the adversarial from “laundering” and “terrorism.” In other words, the cheats that are the controllers of money, the pirates that use money as the tool for contractual enslavement of all peoples and nations, are protected by that highest fraud of organized (universal) “Christian” religion. For a world government must be based on a world currency, and a world government cannot exist unless it is married (justified) by a global church. They must be married, but the also must be separated. But separation is not annulment, but a legally binding contract of both parties. What is separate is still married. And the separation of church and state is only the separation of moral and civil (legal) law, so that the church has no power over the state, but still lies in marriage with its actions and in justification of its crimes against man, Nature, and God. Do not be fooled by this Masonic treatise of separation of church and state, for the slave-master cannot afford to be bound by the moral, scriptural law when acting commercially in his holding of slaves. His power relies upon the false doctrines of his created corporate religion, and his law over men depends solely on those men not under-standing the scriptural law of the Bible as the very foundation of the common law.

—=—

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Most public-minded fools educated in public places and indoctrinated with the public law of the usurious gods of congress and their magistrates in judicial seats at Bar would view this quote by one of the corporate founders of the United States as purely religious drivel. And yet this is the very foundation of law. For the Bible is indeed the foundation of the moral law as part of the unwritten common law. We either follow it by following the teachings and footsteps of christ in action and in works or we follow that which is opposed to it, bearing the false symbol of a cross while worshiping only the legal system of the controllers of mammon. There is no other law, for all aspects of the law begin with this foundational choice. And so we have been convinced that what we see as the corporate religions of the state are the only choice we have if we wish to practice our religious works. We have been taught to associate the church with the Bible, which could not be any more opposite. For when the words of the scriptures are translated by the priest-class to justify the legal incorporation of that church and the legal, licensed, flattering title of the priest, in no way can the true intention of the scriptures be taught genuinely by the false prophet, for-profit “priest.” The intent of the professor of that corporate religion must support its doctrine over that of the actual scriptures, just as the state pretends to be a “Christian” nation, using that term as merely a flattering title among its own created wasteland of legalism.

As the scriptures state, the True church is not a building created by the hands of men, but is the men who together follow the religious practices of the moral law by the example of christ. This is True religion. All else is merely the work of Masonry, of buildings constructed by the hands of men and made to be more “sacred” than the scriptures and the men who would follow them. But that which is artificial and held sacred is actually the opposite. Sacred means cursed, for all fiction is a curse when held above Nature and without self-evidence. The True followers of christ were fed to the lions by Caesar, remember? For no law of man could control them. Their existence was of the Pure self-evidence of the Highest Law.

We, however, contently sit in the stands of the colosseum, modernly recreated into the cushy couch in front of our big-screen televisions connected in a grid of false information and artificial intelligence, watching with a feeling of exhilaration or pretended helplessness as Caesar’s pets.

So what is this modern Caesar’s goals with this global network of Financial Information Authorities?

For a fair notion of this, let us see just what this Egmont Group is.

—=—

About the Egmont Group

Recognizing the importance of international cooperation in the fight against money laundering and financing of terrorism, a group of Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) met at the Egmont Arenberg Palace in Brussels, Belgium, and decided to establish an informal network of FIUs for the stimulation of international co-operation. Now known as the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units, Egmont Group FIUs meet regularly to find ways to promote the development of FIUs and to cooperate, especially in the areas of information exchange, training and the sharing of expertise.

Recognizing the importance of international cooperation in the fight against money laundering and financing of terrorism, a group of Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) met at the Egmont Arenberg Palace in Brussels, Belgium, and decided to establish an informal network of FIUs for the stimulation of international co-operation. Now known as the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units, Egmont Group FIUs meet regularly to find ways to promote the development of FIUs and to cooperate, especially in the areas of information exchange, training and the sharing of expertise.

The Egmont Group has evolved over the years and is currently (2015) comprised of 151 member FIUs. The 2012 FATF Recommendations expect that FIUs apply for membership with the Egmont Group, therefore, the Egmont network of FIUs is expected to grow even further in the coming years.

After over 15 successful years of the Egmont Group, and with the publication of the revised FATF 40 Recommendations in 2012, it was necessary to amend the governing documents of the organization. The Charter Review Project team has produced a complimentary set of documents, which are interlinked and reference relevant FATF Recommendations. The revised Egmont Charter (2013), Egmont Principles for Information ExchangeandOperational Guidance for FIUs provide the foundation for the future work of the Egmont Group and contribute to greater international cooperation and information exchange between FIUs.

The goal of the Egmont Group is to provide a forum for FIUs around the world to improve cooperation in the fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorism and to foster the implementation of domestic programs in this field. This support includes:

Expanding and systematizinginternational cooperation in the reciprocal exchange of information;

Increasing the effectiveness of FIUs by offering training and promoting personnel exchanges to improve the expertise and capabilities of personnel employed by FIUs;

Fostering better and secure communication among FIUs through the application of technology, such as the Egmont Secure Web (ESW);

Fostering increased coordination and support among the operational divisions of member FIUs;

Promoting the operational autonomy of FIUs; and

Promoting the establishment of FIUs in conjunction with jurisdictions with an AML/CFT program in place, or in areas with a program in the early stages of development.

This is akin to the notion of United Nations “peacekeeping” forces, another way of saying a global army that beats down nations and people when they don’t wish to cooperate in this globalist banking cartel organized internationally under the Pope (universal church) and United Nations (universal state). While in a prima facie way (on the face of it without further evidence) this sounds like a good thing, we cannot forget that this is mammon. This is what enslaves us all, both individuals (in person) and through the particular nation and jurisdiction we in nativity (captivity) within. And so billions starve so that money can be hoarded and invested.

Globalism is not what we think it is, and will not be accomplished how we keep expecting it to. Our public-mindedness gets in the way of out discernment of evil, for we live in the midst of the designs of evil in artifice. Globalism is not government, but governance. The difference is that governments are separate, while governance is universal. At this point in time, while we still play the game of thrones of nations, pretending their borders tangibly exist in Nature and also that we are somehow a part of them, global governance is being more and more universally cast about each nation to create that one, united body politic. The standards and practices put forward by countless private associations such as the International Bar Association (to which all other national Bar associations are members), Codex Alimentarius Commission (a body that was established in early November 1961 by the Food and Drug Administration of the United Nations (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Government Accounting Standars Board (GASB) to which all government financial statements (audits) are slowly being made beholden to, we find that all individual governments of nations are being governed by these private, non-governmental agencies and associations, commonly called non-governmental organizations of NGO’s. And so while the nations will continue to appear to be sovereign in their legal capacity, and while the private landholders of each State of the nations and countries will certainly retain such sovereignty, the notions they created are all being happily made to conform to these outside influences, best practices, initiatives, declarations, and other forms of corporate governance that are essentially creating one giant corporation of ignorant plebes that love their enslavement.

—=—

“The real hopeless victims of mental illness are to be found among those who appear to be most normal… Many of them are normal because they are so well adjusted to our mode of existence,because their human voice has been silenced so early in their lives, that they do not even struggle or suffer or develop symptoms as the neurotic does. They are normal not in what may be called the absolute sense of the word; they are normal only in relation to a profoundly abnormal society.Their perfect adjustment to that abnormal society is a measure of their mental sickness. These millions of abnormally normal people, living without fuss in a society to which, if they were fully human beings, they ought not to be adjusted.”

―Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited

—=—

The mass of illiterates will certainly adjust, for without such an adjustment, without taking the mark of this collective machine as its beast, they will not be able to participate in the cashless society being set up as we speak. Their phones will not work. Their connection to the A.I. will be shut off. Their property will be sexed by its rightful owner, the owner of their legal person (status). Their worthless lives will be more valuable than Life Itself. They will beg to be part of this global structure of the artifice of mammon.

A glanse at the listed partnerships of this Egmont Group tells a tale of its own, and let’s us know what the pope and vatican truly support.

At this point, I am not sure I can provide anything more as to what is happening right now all around you. You either choose to see the self-evidence of what this is or you continue to suffer it. I hold little hope of any future but the more organized hell of nations united into a more fluid version of we have become accustomed to. I have little faith in the zombie public that they may ever wake themselves up by abandoning their false truths in acceptance of the pain and anguish that Reality will deal to their artificial lives and collections of insured stuff. But I look forward to some future day when those of us who can see and accept the harshest and most beautiful parts of Reality for what they Truly are, and live together in that remnant. And I look with sadness at what I know is to come, as this false enlightenment of false religion and law overcomes even the most ardent of strongholds as technology (artifice) causes the best of moral men to succumb to the temptations and inducements of mammon.

—=—

“There’s nothing in the world so demoralizing as money.”

―Sophocles, Antigone

—=—

“All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil.The only crime is pride.”

―Sophocles, Antigone

—=—

It is ironic that as I uncover and speak the Truth in its self-evidence evermore clearly that I am offered less and less airtime for interviews on the radio. It appears that the “truth” movement is quite unwilling to hear about its name-sake, and the imaginations of men have thrust us all into a hopeless delusion. And so I leave you with this, the parabolic predictions of the scriptures.

—=—

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth,but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

—2 Timothy 2: 11-12, KJB

—=—

“And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark… And that no man might BUY OR SELL, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”

—Revelation 13: 16-17, KJB

—=—

Now we might finally see what these two oft-quoted but totally misunderstood verses actually mean. For this word “his” as used in reference to the “number of HIS name” is actually the word autos, Strong’s #G846, which carries the meaning of a personal pronoun of the third person, of the false self, the legal strawman. All the names of Caesar’s realm are registered with numbers, and the number of the name referenced here is indeed the legal persona we pretend to be in agency. We are caused to be beasts of burden in lading, and very soon we will not be able to participate in this system of mammon without that social security number of our name, as managed by the International Social Security Association (ISSA) of the United Nations. This was not some monster or creature from any etherial real or island, this is our own agentic, fictional, legal persona. This is a parable about exactly what is happing today, the voluntary surrender of God’s authority and the unalienable rights so-called that exist only in that realm of Reality and Nature.

The less popular verse that the frar-mongorers seem to forget to share is this one, for there can be a happy ending for those who do not sit and wait for some supernatural (above Nature) false god to return and save them, for those who realize that the teachings of christ were a do-it-yourself instruction manual for the spiritual man.

—=—

“And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the numberofhisname,stand on the sea off glass, having the harps of God.”

–Revelation 15:2, KJB

—=—

The word “harp,” as Strong’s #G2788 – kithara – has only the metaphorically meaning of “the music of the Bible, to which the praises of God are sung in heaven.” In other words, those following the Word (Law) of God, this word “Word” as capitalized meaning the “Son” of God as the only spiritual example, and who fear only what will happen if that Highest Law is not followed, these are the remainder; the remnant. The word harp is not a noun but a verb, an action, a song (hymn) not only sung but followed in action.

If you want to know more, if you truly seek the meanings of these things through the sourced and often ancient intention of the origin of the words used, please acquire my voluminous works to be posted soon for free at StrawmanStory.info. Though and original work, this has been but a small, general overview of that larger project, and whatever questions are left unanswered here are covered in triplicate in that work. I will announce on this blog when Volume One that work is complete and posted free for download only at the website listed above. And please know that this work is absolutely meant to be freely shared, not for-profit and gain, nor for usurious purposes, not to be employed in commerce, but to share this not-so-hidden knowledge that has been kept a mystery from us in plain sight throughout the ages. Play it forward…

My latest interview on the subject of the false perceptions of the federal reserve can be found here (caution – wordy dirds used):

Please note that this post has been self-edited on the spot, and so any mistakes the reader may have found are certainly welcome to be shared. Please leave corrections in separate comments that can be deleted, and not mixed with normal comments. And dare I ask for sources by any contrarians? Thanks.

Well, simply stated, it is a group of six Senators who advise the other 94 Senators and their staff on whether or not those other 94 Senators, as well as themselves, are acting ethically within their duties as Senators – according to the their own made-up “Senate Rules”.

From the Senate Ethics Committee official website we read:

“Members, officers, and certain employees of the United States Senate, related offices, and candidates for the Senate are required by Title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended (the “Act,” 5 U.S.C. app., Section 101 et seq., also adopted as Senate Rule 34) and Senate Rule 41.1 to file Financial Disclosure Reports with the Secretary of the Senate, Office of Public Records.

The Act gives the Senate Select Committee on Ethics the authority to administer the law for the Senate, promulgate the Senate Financial Disclosure Report Forms and Instructions, and issue advisory opinions regarding the Act for the Senate and related offices and Senate candidates. If you need additional information about completing these reports, please contact the Committee at 220 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510.”

Now, if the irony of this situation isn’t readily apparent to you, let’s break this down into similar terms:

Let’s say we have a prison full of 100 prisoners. Between prison rapes, shivs in the back, selling of contraband, and gangland style beatings, murders, and violent riots, the prisoners are periodically and anually judged on their ethical and moral behavior by their peers. And so, a committee of 6 prisoners is assembled in a special and official looking chamber, and it is their job to judge whether or not the other 94 prisoners and themselves acted ethically and morally during the rapes, shivs in the back, contraband sales, gangland style beatings, murders, and violent riots. Of course, we must stop to consider that these 6 prisoners on the prison ethics committee also participated in these acts of violence and unethical/immoral behavior, and in reality they know that being a rat in prison will end them up on the wrong side of a shiv – or worse. Partners in crime, of course, have a very good reason to cover up what their partners have done, lest their partner rats back and takes all parties to the unethical behavior down with them.

This, in a nutshell, is what goes on in the Senate (and Congressional) Ethics Committee.

The current Senate Ethics Committee members include:

Senator Barbara Boxer, California – Chairman

Senator Johnny Isakson,Georgia – Vice Chairman

Senator Mark L. Pryor, Arkansas

Senator Pat Roberts,Kansas

Senator Sherrod Brown,Ohio

Senator James E. Risch,Idaho

To best understand what takes place within the halls of the Senate Ethics Committee, I pulled up the 2011 Annual Report of the Committee, as required by “The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007“, which calls for the Select Committee on Ethics to issue an annual report not later than January 31 of each year describing its activities for the preceding year. Though this committee officially has no monetary dealings, they must still file this annual report by Federal law.

Number of alleged violations from preliminary inquiry resulting in judicial review:0

Number of alleged violations dismissed by Committee in inquiry for lack of merit: 8

Number of alleged violations where a letter of admonition was issued: 0

Number of alleged violations resulting in disciplinary sanction: 0

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Holy hand-grenade that’s impressive!!!

To be clear, these organized criminals declared by, of, and for themselves that out of 93 cases of alleged violations of the code of ethics as set out by their own pretend “Senate Rules”, not one single case was considered worthy of judicial review outside of the Senate itself. In other words, the 6 Senators who are the Members of the Senate Ethics Committee decided that, after reviewing the ethics violations allegedly done by themselves and their fellow organized criminals, no violation of ethics had occurred within this merry band of 100 Senators and/or their staff! So without any official legal review, these cases of alleged violations of criminal activity were halted from ever seeing the inside of a courtroom, a jury, or any other public outlet of justice or disclosure.

Now lets imagine again our 100 prisoners and the 6 prisoner board of prison ethics again… Is there possibly just a slight conflict of interest here? Do birds bird? Do bees bee?

The 2011 annual report goes on to say that the Ethics Committee handled:

So apparently the Senate Ethics Committee must be a fairly full time job! When do they possibly have time to be Senators and represent their state of election?

Let’s consider for a moment: do these men and women of the Senate and Congress really not know what is simply right and wrong? Do they really not understand what insider trading is, for instance? Do they truly not know what is ethical and what isn’t without asking questions? Is it really necessary to make over 11,000 inquiries as to what is considered ethical as a public official and statesman? Isn’t that what they supposedly campaigned on in the first place?

The report goes on to say that the Committee staff conducted:

——————————————————————————————————————————————

4new member ethics training sessions.

14employee code of conduct training sessions.

21Member and committee office campaign briefings.

43ethics seminars for Member DC offices, state offices, and Senate committees.

2private sector ethics briefings.

10 international ethics briefings.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

My, they have been busy haven’t they? Isn’t it good to know that millions of dollars in taxpayer money goes to pay for all of these meetings, briefings, hearings, and training sessions, all so that the Committee on ethics can halt any real inquiry into the actual ethics of the actions of Senators and House members?

In reality, we must understand the true nature and purpose of these briefings, meetings, and training sessions. For they aren’t altruistic attempts to teach ethics, morals, and values to a group of public and appointed officials. No, but that would be wonderful though… Instead, the Ethics Committee is teaching its Members and their staff how to properly commit unethical behavior in a way that is consistent with both legal CODE and Senate Rules on ethics, so that no investigation into such behavior is warranted outside their little ethics social club.

Do you understand the difference?

In order to avoid the Senate Ethics Committee and its wrath, these briefings are teaching our Senators and their staff how to commit crimelegally and ethically (i.e. properly work around and within Senate Rules and U.S. CODE). They teach how to ethically conduct and report insider trading legally. They teach how to receive local and international gifts and emoluments (payments) as prohibited by the constitution and defined within the U.S. CODE and Rules of Senate ethics legally and ethically. And on and on it goes…

Now do you understand the difference?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the U.S. constitution states:

“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

The original intent of this ever so important clause is being violated on a constant basis by these Senators and Congressmen. But we must understand the reason that this is true. For the constitution itself is riddled with “exceptions” like the one we see here. Words like “without”, “except”, and “unless” create major loopholes of interpretation from within this document. And the Congress and the Senate have taken full advantage of this particular and exceptional loophole. For they have literally self- interpreted this clause to allow themselves to give themselves consent via the authority and legal right of congress to accept the offering of foreign gifts, presents, emoluments, offices, and titles of almost any kind whatever. The simple statement “without consent of the Congress” essentially makes this whole clause null and void at the whim of congress, allowing for the complete and contemptible disregard of the original and true intent of this constitutional mandate. And unfortunately, the constitution as well as the U.S. CODE is full of these exception clauses, giving virtual carte blanche power to violate many of the most important legal, ethical, and moral barriers to the practice of the type of streamlined organized criminal behavior taking place in Washington DC and on the State, county, and local level throughout government.

In short, a government that grants itself power and then adjudicates itself on the ethical and moral compass of the powers it projects and uses within the spectrum of its own power, is and always will be in a state of perpetual conflict of interest. The old unanswered question of “Who regulates the regulators?” is the paradox we are beholding here, and in a major way within these so-called “Ethics Committees”.

Are you starting to get the picture here?

Just what are ethics supposed to be anyway?

Ethics are something ingrained deep within the heart and minds of men. One either has them or they do not. And for honorable men and women, the simple presentment of an opportunity for corruption would generally not be the precursor for deciding to be ethical and moral in government. But from within the Ethics Committee, ethics are indeed something that can be written down and worked around. Ethics obviously have no real place of honor among thieves, other than the unspoken code of ethics that has been called “honor among thieves”, an apparently fitting credo for the Senate and Congressional Ethics Committee.

But surely this was just a good year – a quirky and coincidental set of circumstances that just happened to come about literally exempting all 93 of these official and possible Senate Rules ethics violations be considered frivolous and not worthy of judicial review. Surely this was not the normal happenstance of a typical Select Ethics Committee year, was it?

Well, let’s go back to the 2010 annual report, showing the entire fiscal year of 2009 and the actions taken by the Ethics Committee against reported violations of Senate ethics.

On this report we read:

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Number of alleged violations of Senate rules:99 (+26 from previous year) = 125

Number of alleged violations dismissed:103 including:

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or no violation of “Senate rules”:58

Incredible! Again, not one case of ethics violation was found worthy of even a judicial review! The Committee again found that these reports of ethics violations by their fellow conspirators weren’t worthy of any type of in depth investigation, and simply shelved them so that their brothers and sisters of masonic nobility, and more importantly the reputation of the institution of the Senate, would not be tarnished.

Now you might be asking yourself just what does it take to actually get these Ethics Committee overlords to decide that a case of ethical misconduct or malfeasance is worth passing on to an actual judicial review of those actions?

Honestly, the bar for this must be severely high. For we see only one important action that was different about this annual report than that of the 2011 report, and that was simply a letter to one Senator in the form of a public reprimand, called a “letter of admonition”.

The word admonition is defined as “counsel, advice, or caution”, and is used in law as “an official or legal notice”.

But in this case, this admonition letter seems to be nothing more than a nasty-gram; a written slap on the wrist that carries with it absolutely no legal recourse at all. In other words, it serves absolutely no purpose other than a mild public ostracizing by the Select Ethics Committee on behalf of the Senate and an entry on the annual report. And by its very lack of legal action, in this authors opinion, it also serves as a brightly lit beacon that shines the message that ethics are just a formality and a misnomer when it comes to the Senate.

It is our good fortune that this letter is indeed posted in the public domain, and so we can download and read that letter here.

So what does it ultimately take to get even the slightest attention from the Senate Ethics Committee, but still no real legal review or punishment? The answer to this question comes as quite a shocker…

This horrifying “letter of admonition” states:

——————————————————————————————————————————————

November 20, 2009

The Honorable Roland W. Burris (Honorable is a title of nobility, by the way)
United States Senate
Washington DC, 20510

Public Letter of Qualified Admonition

Dear Senator Burris:

After an extensive investigation, the Select Committee on Ethics is issuing you this Public Letter of Qualified Admonition for actions and statements reflecting unfavorably upon the Senate in connection with your appointment to and seating in the Senate.

(Authors note: This Senator was appointed to fill now President Barack Housain Obama’s empty senate seat in Illinois. The key word hear is APPOINTED. In actuality, all congress-people are employees of the Federal government, under TITLE 2 and TITLE 5 of U.S. CODE. Elections are a mere formality, for which the supposed winner of those elections are made “employees” as legal corporate persons of the United States incorporated.)

The Committee found that you should have known that you were providing incorrect, inconsistent, misleading, or incomplete information to the public, the Senate, and those conducting legitimate inquiries into your appointment to the Senate. The Committee also found that your November 13, 2008 phone call with Robert Blagojevich was inappropriate. Although some of these events happened before you were sworn in as a U.S. Senator, they were inextricably linked to your appointment and therefore fall within the jurisdiction of this Committee.

While the Committee did not find that the evidence before it supported any actionable violations of law, Senators must meet a much higher standard of conduct. Senate Resolution 338 gives this Committee the authority and responsibility to investigate Members who may engage in “improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate“.

To make its determination, the Committee conducted interviews with multiple witnesses… reviewed a tape of the November 13, 2008 phone conversations… (and reviewed) your sworn and unsworn statements… Based on all the evidence before it, the Committee reached the following conclusions:

Your sworn affidavit and sworn testimony before the Illinois House of Representatives were inconsistent, incomplete, and misleading.

(Author’s note: In other words, you lied under oath, Mr. Burris!)

In your January 5, 2009 affidavit, you state that you did not have any contact with Governor Blagojevich or any of his representatives about your appointment to the Senate before December 26, 2008. In your January 8, 2009 testimony before the Impeachment Committee, despite repeated and specific questioning, you did not disclose having any conversations about your desire to seek the U.S. Senate appointment or about fundraising with anyone associated with the Governor, except Lon Monk. It was not until your second affidavit and subsequent press statement that you disclosed additional contacts with associates of the Governor.

These omissions in your sworn statements are particularly noteworthy given their context. The Governor had recently been arrested and charged with corruptly using his authority to make a Senate appointment in exchange for campaign contributions and other benefits (gifts), and these charges were the subject of the impeachment hearings conducted by the Illinois House of Representatives, as well as intense media scrutiny. Therefore, you should have known that any conversations you had about your desire to seek the Senate seat and about any possible fundraising for the Governor were critical to these inquires. In addition, your testimony on January 8, 2009 was one of the factors the Senate leadership said they would consider in your seating, and its truthfulness was important an relevant to your seating.

Your November 13, 2008 phone call with Robert Blagojevich, while not rising to the level of an explicit quid pro quo, was inappropriate.

(Author’s note: Quid pro quo = something that is given or taken in return for something else; a substitute – in this case political gain for gifts and emoluments, or bribery!)

When Robert Blogojevich called you on November 13, 2008, he was explicit about the purpose of the call: to raise campaign funds for his brother. Yet, during this conversation in which you appeared to agree to write a check and even potentially raise money for Governor Blagojevich, you repeatedly brought up your desire to seek the Senate seat. You also implied that the people you might raise money from would be unhappy if you did not receive the appointment. The Committee finds that this conversation was inappropriate in its content and implications.

***

In determining the proper conclusion to this matter, the Committee took into consideration many factors, including the fact that the Sangamon County State’s Attorney found that your sworn statements and affidavits were not actionable violations of the law. We were also aware that these issues surrounding your appointment to and seating in the Senate have been subject to intense public criticism.

Again, the Committee has found that your actions and statements reflected unfavorably on the Senate and issues this Public Letter of Qualified Admonition.

Sincerely,

(signed)

Barbara Boxer
Chairman

Johnny IsaksonVice Chairman

Mark L. PryorMember

Pat RobertsMember

Sherrod BrownMember

James E. RischMember

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Note that all Letters of Admonition for the last 7 years may be found here:

To be clear, the appointed Senator from Illinois lied and omitted information while under oath. He bribed and negotiated for a seat on the Senate, stating obtusely that his supporters would not make financial contributions to the Blagojevich campaign without promises by Blagojevich for that Senate seat. He provided incomplete, misleading, and untrue information to the Senate when that body was considering the acceptance of his appointment. And he purposefully withheld pertinent information within his testimonies, not the least of which involved the impeachment hearings of Illinois Governor Blagojevich and his subsequent imprisonment.

And for this, Senator Roland W. Burris received a three page hate letter?

Again, Mr. Burris lied while under oath.

Remember when President Clinton lied under oath about his famous cigar incident? How about Nixon?

So… if these particular crimes are not worthy of judicial review, including lying under oath, and according to the Senate Ethics Committee only require a slap-on-the-wrist public statement of admonition, what could possibly be bad enough that a case of Ethics inquiry should see the inside of a courtroom or a jury of the people? And just what is the Select Senate Committee’s definition of ethics?

Do you suppose this letter of admonition would have even been issued if it weren’t for the fact that this violation of ethics was “subject to intense public criticism” and that Mr. Burris’ “actions and statements reflected unfavorably on the Senate?“

Perhaps there is something else to consider here…

Mr Roland W. Burris is a BAR attorney at law, and that means that he took another more ominous oath to a private association known as the International BAR Association, with its United States corporate offices acting as the legal body within the United States (federal districts called States), the American BAR Association. This oath to uphold the bankruptcy of the United States under emergency powers declared by the president of the United States corporation is not an oath to the people or to America. And it grants attorneys and lawyers one of the most odious European titles of nobility in history – that being an esquire.

So who else was a BAR attorney?

How about fellow conspirator Governor Rod Blagojevich?

On Thursday, September 29, 2011, it was announced that in mid-August, administrators for the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission asked the Illinois Supreme Court to suspend the former attorney’s law license, in a likely prelude to the further disgrace of disbarment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich)

Disbarment is the removal of a lawyer from a bar association or from the practice of law, including the revocation of his or her law license or admission to practice law. Procedures vary depending on the law society (the American BAR Association is similar to a law society, but is in actuality a tax-exempt trade union which advocates for its members – which are accepted Members called BAR attorneys). Disbarment is similar to admonishment, for the reputation of the BAR is at stake, and public disgrace will of course not be tolerated… only private disgrace without media and public scrutiny!

Of course, Mr. Burris was appointed by Governor Blagojevich to his Senate seat when then Senator Barack Obama was elected president. President Obama, surprise-surprise, is also a BAR attorney. And so is his wife. In fact more than half of Senators, most State Governors, and a significant portion (about 36%) of the House of Representatives are BAR attorneys/lawers.

Member Senator Barbara Boxer, while not an attorney, has a son and a husband who are BAR attorneys. Barbara was however a stockbroker and does a little “ethical” insider trading on the side.

Steve Kroft reports that members of Congress canlegally trade stock based on non-public information from Capitol Hill.

Ethics Committee Member Mark Pryor is the former Attorney General of Arkansas; another BAR attorney. Apparently, you don’t have to be too smart to be an Attorney General either.

Committee man Pat Roberts is actually not an attorney! But you should know that on September 28, 2006 Senator Roberts voted to suspend habeas corpus for any individual deemed by the Executive Branch an “unlawful combatant,” barring them from challenging federal detentions in court (the BAR association) – yet another basic principle of the constitution unethically destroyed via the “consent of congress” option. U.S. Officials now have a legal nine-year retroactive immunity if they authorize, order, or commit acts of torture and abuse; and any statements obtained through torture can now be used in military tribunals so long as the abuse took place by December 30, 2005. The federal government can now “interpret the meaning and application” of international Geneva Convention standards, and ignore them. The “Detainee Treatment Act of 2005” became law (legal CODE) on October 17, 2006. Senator Roberts was also chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. This committee was in charge of exposing the lies about “weapons of mass destruction” that led America into the undeclared invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Perhaps this is why over half of Americans still belive the lie that these countries had nuclear weapons?

Senator James Risch served as the President of the Idaho Prosecuting Attorneys Association. Yes, that makes him a BAR attorney, and was Idaho’s 31st Governor before being elected to the Senate.

Now, if you are wondering why this information is relevant to this expose upon Senate Ethics, let me explain…

These members of the American BAR Association (ABA) all took a very important oath. That oath is primarily to uphold the procedure of the court (the judicial branch) which is outsourced by our government to the American BAR Association. We currently have a political body that is in yet another unethical conflict of interest. That conflict is the simple fact that in order for there to be a separation of powers between the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches of government – as outlined in the constitution – an attorney who is sworn by oath to uphold the BAR association’s copyrighted law and all that it entails cannot in good faith and without a conflict of interest be a voting Member of the Legislative branch of government or of the Executive branch. But here we are with not only the president and CEO of the United States as a BAR attorney, but also the majority of the Senate and a significant voting minority of the Congress.

How can we possibly have a separation of powers from within the three branches of government with a bunch of BAR’d attorneys virtually running the government?

And who will possibly stand up and say that this in not as severe of a conflict of interest as there can possibly be? For with the influence of BAR attorneys on a Committee that decides on the ethical and moral compass of the Senate Members, and whether or not they are breaking the law, we have the men and women who take an oath to protect the lawmakers (the BAR Association administers and adjudicates the validity and interpretation of law) deciding what is lawful. This by definition is a complete conflict of interest. Again, the oath is not to the constitution or to America, but to a foreign corporation that is in direct violation of that constitution (if it weren’t for those pesky “exception” clauses, that is).

The Judicial is the BAR.

Many States are run by governors that are also BAR attorneys.

The Legislative is mostly represented by the BAR.

The Executive is lead by the BAR, and has appointeda majority of BAR attorneys as Cabinet officials (unelected Secretaries and Czars).

Now do you see the relevance and urgency of this blatant conflict of interest? And do you understand that there are no true ethics or morals in the BAR Association, only a profit model based billable hours and on legal CODE through the Court Registry Investment System (CRIS) – where prisoners are traded via their CUSIP numbers as bundled securities on the commodities markets for the fruits of their prison labor?

THIS IS YOUR GOVERNMENT!!!

And by the way… did you ever hear what Governor Blagojevich stated before his trial?

Taking on banks has killed and oppressed more than one politician, attorney or not! And imagine the information Mr. B has on Obama and the rest of the finest of Chicago’s political and criminal syndicate…

But I digress. Back to the subject at hand…

Surely this was just another coincidence. Surly the 2008 fiscal year annual report will show some sort of ethics violations that got past the inquiry Committee and into a judicial review… right?

The 2009 annual report for fiscal year 2008 states the following:

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Number of alleged violations of Senate rules: 85 (+5 from previous year):90

Number of alleged violations dismissed:73 including:

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or no violation of “Senate rules”:52

Number of alleged violations from preliminary inquiry resulting in judicial review:0

Number of alleged violations dismissed by Committee in inquiry for lack of merit:4

Number of alleged violations where a letter of admonition was issued:2

Number of alleged violations resulting in disciplinary sanction: 0

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Amazing! Once again we have absolutely no cases of unethical behavior or actions that this Committee found to be deserving of a judicial (BAR) review.

How can this possibly be?

At least this year there were two letters of admonition sent – a familiar sign that crime was certainly committed but not dealt with accordingly. After all, the BAR Association is there to protect its attorneys, not prosecute them. And, just like the Senate does not wish to tarnish its own reputation, the BAR Association certainly wouldn’t want to do much with a case where a BAR attorney acting as Senator is involved. So in actuality, the whole thing is a stage show for the benefit of the voting public. And let’s face it: the only reason the Blagojevich case was so huge was that he was going up against Bank of America – a government owned corporation via collective stock ownership in government investment trust and pension funds. A man with this much insider information who is going up against the international banking institutions is bound to become a victim to a media blitz. Are we to believe that the conversations and emails of all politicians aren’t being recorded and scrutinized, and that old Robert was the only criminal in the whole bunch? Well, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you if you believe that.

OK. Let’s go for broke here. Because surely something different must have happened in 2007…

The 2008 annual report for fiscal year 2007 states the following:

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Number of alleged violations of Senate rules: 95

Number of alleged violations dismissed: 86 including:

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or no violation of “Senate rules”: 71

Number of alleged violations from preliminary inquiry resulting in judicial review: 0

Number of alleged violations dismissed by Committee in inquiry for lack of merit: 11

Number of alleged violations where a letter of admonition was issued: 0

Number of alleged violations resulting in disciplinary sanction: 0

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Yippee! It’s a perfect record! The Senate was officially “ethical” in fiscal year 2007!!!

And that brings us to a total of 363 alleged violation of Senate Rules, with a grand total of ZERO ending up being serious enough to pass on to a judicial review, a total of ZERO cases requiring disciplinarian action, and a total of 3 nasty-gram letters sent in “admonition” warning. All 363 cases of unethical behavior were overturned and dismissed in their preliminary Committee inquiry…

Now don’t you feel better about your government, knowing that these 6 Senators are deciding on the ethical construct of the entirety of the Senate?

But surely in the last two years there has been at least one apparent ethics violation that saw the light of day outside this organized criminal syndicate, right?

For 2013:

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Number of alleged violations of Senate rules: 26 (including 2 from previous year)

Number of alleged violations dismissed: 26 including:

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or no violation of “Senate rules”: 19

Number of alleged violations from preliminary inquiry resulting in judicial review: 0

Number of alleged violations dismissed by Committee in inquiry for lack of merit: 1

Number of alleged violations where a letter of admonition was issued: 2

Number of alleged violations resulting in disciplinary sanction: 0

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Well I’ll be a monkey’s uncle! The Senate, as far as they are concerned, are nothing if not an almost perfect merry band of little angels.

And that makes, in 6 years, a total of 436 alleged violations of Senate ethics and absolutely ZERO that actually got investigated by an outside legal source. Now if that isn’t the very definition of organized crime, I sure as hell don’t know what is!!!

–=–A Question Of Ethics?–=–

As we saw earlier, the Select Committee On Ethics also answers questions on ethical behavior through telephone and email requests. Let’s take a look at some of those requests as posted on the Ethics Committee website:

My favorite one is entitled: “Definition of “Immediate Family” for Requested Appropriations”.

This memo, dated September 12, 2007, was sent to all Senators without referencing which potential criminal actually asked the question:

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Dear Colleague,

As you know, the “Honest Leadership and Open Government Act” requires all Senators to state in writing that neither they nor anyone in their immediate family will benefit financially from their requested appropriations.

In order to help Senators comply with this new rule, we have been asked to define the term “immediate family”.

The Ethics Committee determined that, in this case, “immediate family” consists of a Senator’s father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, husband, wife, father-in-law, and mother-in-law. this definition is exactly the same as the one used elsewhere –Section 601 (a)– in the Act.

For your information, the Senate rule reads: “No Member, officer, or employee of the Senate shall knowingly use his official position to introduce, request, or otherwise aid the progress or passage of congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits a principle purpose of which is to further only his pecuniary interest, only the pecuniary interest of his immediate family, or only the pecuniary interest of a limited class of persons or enterprises, when he or his immediate family, or enterprises controlled by them, are members of the affected class.”

The Senate rules have long barred Senators and Senate employees from taking legislative action to financially benefit themselves or their immediate families. The Act clarifies that this long-standing rule applies to congressionally directed appropriations, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits — and requires Senators to certify that they are in compliance.

If you have questions, please consult the Ethics Committee (LOL!) at 4-2981.

Doesn’t that just take the cake? A Senator actually wanted the Ethics Committee to define the phrase “immediate family”. It only takes a few moments of logical and rational thought to come to the only logical conclusion as to why any Senator would possibly ask such a ridiculous sounding question…

He or she wanted to use Senate monies to benefit someone that was somehow related, say a distant cousin by marriage or an auntie and uncle, and didn’t want to break the Senate Rule stating that he or she could not do this. And so again, the Select Ethics Committee has shown our honorable Senators how to get around the rules so as to not get a nasty letter of admonition from the Committee!

There has been recent media attention regarding the use of foreign travel per diem by Members and staff of the Senate. We want to make sure that you and your staffs know that any unused portion of your foreign travel per diem must be returned to the United States Treasury after you return home. Specifically, Senate Rule 39.3 states:

“A per diem allowance provided a Member, officer, or employee in connection with foreign travel shall be used solely for lodging, food, and related expenses and it is the responsibility of the Member, officer, or employee receiving such allowance to return to the United States Government that portion of the allowance received which is not actually used for necessary lodging, food, and related expenses.”

The Committee encourages Members and staff with questions about returning travel per diem to consult the Department of State’s Official Foreign Travel Guide for the U.S. Congress (copies available from the Committee). According to the guide, travelers returning an unused per diem to the U.S. Treasury may do so by personal check or money order. The repayment along with a memorandum about the trip and the amount returned, may be delivered to the Department of State’s Senate Liaison Office in the Russel Senate Office Building. We also understand that the Department’s Congressional Travel Office will arrange for the pick-up of unused per diem.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have questions, please feel free to contact Committee staff at 224-2981.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

What is this, high school?

Does such a basic concept as returning unused expense account monies really have to be stated in a group memo?

And gee golly, are you starting to see a theme here? Is it just me or are most of these memos being written in direct response to media coverage of unethical behavior by the Senate – not because the unethical behavior and actions are taking place and obviously so by just checking the accounting sheets – but only because the “reputation of the Senate” is being tarnished by media coverage of their legal crimes and malfeasance?

At this point, the term conspiracy is not merely a theory, but an obvious and purposeful plan of action within the Senate and House.

And finally, let’s take a look at one last memo, referring to foreign gifts.

Now, before we read this one, let’s pause to remember Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the U.S. constitution again, which states:

“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

And for kicks, lets take a look at the original 13th Amendment to the constitution, which magically disapeared from the new post-civil war corporate documents called the U.S. Constitution without ever being repealed. This 13th Amendment is generally a reinforcement of the Titles of Nobility clause in the original constitution above. This amendment was ratified in the year 1819, and was then subsequently removed from the constitution during the turmoil and bankruptcy following the Civil war. It read:

“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

In order to verify that this information is correct and historically accurate, we must double check to see if indeed this amendment did pass on the legislative floor. The United States Senate has kept a journal of its proceedings since its inaugural session, as was conditioned by Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which states:

“Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House, on any question, shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.”

The Journal itself is essentially the minutes of each legislative session. It states most official matters considered by the Senate, their votes, and other actions taken. Here is a copy of the Journal of the Senate, which shows that this amendment was ratified by all thirteen states in the year 1810, passing by representation of 26 to 1 in favor of the new law:

This was one of the most important pieces of legislation in American history, and one that was never properly disposed of via the lawful repeal process. Thus, many hold this original 13th amendment as the key to restoring America, by removing and expelling from government all attorneys who hold an oath, protection, and pension under the BAR Association as a foreign corporation and enemy of the people. This would include the president and much of his federal Cabinet, many governors, most of the Senate, and a significant portion of legislators, and all who served in past and present offices.

Here is a list of some of the well-known American politicians, military men, and iconoclasts who were bestowed a “Title of Nobility” by a foreign land, king, or queen…

–=–

“Knight Grand Cross with the most honorable Order of the Bath” by H.M. Queen Elizabeth (England)

George Herbert Walker Bush

Ronald Reagan

“Knights Commander of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath” by H.M. Queen Elizabeth (England)

General Colin Powell

General Norman Schwarzkopf

Alan Greenspan

Rudy Guiliani

“Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire”
(Military Division) by H.M. Queen Elizabeth (England)

Admiral Leighton W Smith Jr.

“Knight, Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great” by H.M. Queen Elizabeth (England)

Roy Disney and Mrs. Disney

Bob and Delores Hope

“Knight Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire” by H.M. Queen Elizabeth (England)

Caspar Weinberger

“Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire” by H.M. Queen Elizabeth (England)

Bill Gates

General Wesley Clark

John Paul Getty II

“Order of the British Empire” by H.M. Queen Elizabeth (England) – “Legion of Honor” (French) – “Order of Merit” (German)

Tom Foley

“Commander, Order of Arts and Letters” (France).

Charleton Heston

–== Others granted knighthood and nobility by the Queen of England ==–

And hundreds of other influential people that shape the laws and opinions of America…

–=–

It is reported that George Bush Sr. knelt before the Queen of England when receiving his title, which would certainly not qualify to any rational person as an honorary bestowing of title, but rather a servant taking a position of authority before his noble master. And the fact that the Bush family is a descendant of the Windsor family line should be of great concern as well.

There are many who would argue against this point, saying that these are only “honorary” titles of nobility, and that the recipients only bow from the neck and not from the waist, or that a sword is not used, or that it doesn’t really mean anything at all. But a title of “honor” as well falls within the description outlaid in the now forgotten 13th Amendment. And of course, the consenting “exception” clause rears its ugly head once more in both of these constitutional writings.

But to those detractors I must ask: If it doesn’t mean anything… why do it. Why cause the controversy over absolutely nothing? Why mock our supposedly most honored national document that we so cherish, and go against ones own oath to protect and follow it? And why not publicly proclaim your allegiance to the United States and denounce publicly any loyalty or ties to the crown?

Let’s say you’re a player or the coach for a basketball team in a league of basketball teams. You naturally expect a fair game from the other team (countries). And you expect the referee (government) to be impartial and fair in his judgments and penalties, for his presence is to ensure that these rules be followed and enforced, and even to asses penalties for violations of these rules. However, before the game begins you find out that the referee was recently accepted as an “honorary” member of the other team in a secret ceremony, and held in the highest regards by that team; given gifts and emoluments (payments) by that team; and that in doing so, pled his “honorary” and undying allegiance to that team.

Now ask yourself this question…

Would you continue to allow that referee to arbitrate your match, knowing his allegiance was biased against your own team, or would you have that referee excused in lieu of an impartial and noncommittal one that stays true to the rules of conduct and “ethics”? In fact, would you not go out of your way to ensure that this referee never served over another game again by kicking him out of the league, to spare other teams the same unfair treatment?

Isn’t that exactly what this 13th Amendment to the constitution was trying to accomplish, through excommunication of those with Title’s of Honour from a foreign entity?

–=–

Now, back to that memo dated December 7, 2011, from the Senate Ethics Committee about the acceptance of “foreign gifts”.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Dear Colleague:

The Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, 5 U.S.C. 7342, requires that no later than January 31 of each year, the Select Committee on Ethics shall compile a list of certain gifts which Members, officers, of employees of the Senate, or a spouse or dependent of any such person, have received from a foreign government or a multinational organization (i.e. United Nations) during the preceding year. The Committee must send this list to the Secretary of State, who then is required to publish the day in the Federal Register.

Gifts that must be listed are: (1) tangible gifts with a value in excess of $100m, and (2) travel or expenses of travel with a value in excess of $100, taking place entirely outside of the United States excluding travel or expenses of travel accepted under section 108A of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange ACT OF 1961. The Foreign Gifts and Docorations Act places an obligation upon recipients of such gifts to report certain details to the Ethics Committee. The information that is requested for each tangible gift is as follows:

(A) the name and position of the recipient;
(B) a brief description of the gift and the circumstances justifying acceptance;
(C) the identity of the foreign government and the name and position of the individual, if known, who presented the gift;
(D) the date of acceptance of the gift;
(E) the estimated value in the United States of the gift at the time of acceptance; and
(F) the disposition and current location of the gift.

Information which is required for gifts of travel or expenses of travel is as follows:

(A) the name and position of the recipient;
(B) a brief description of the gift and the circumstances justifying acceptance;
(C) the identity, if known, of the foreign government and the name and position of the individual who presented the gift; and
(D) the date travel took place.

Tangible gifts, deemed to have been accepted on behalf of the United States, are required to be deposited with the Secretary of the Senate within 60 days of acceptance. The recipient must make the report to the Ethics Committee at the time of deposit. Reports concerning gifts of travel or expenses must be made to the Ethics Committee within 39 days of acceptance. If you or an officer or employee whom you supervise, or the spouse or dependent of any of these persons, have accepted any gifts described above during calender year 2010, and if you have not already reported the acceptance and required details in writing to the Ethics Committee, we request that each individual recipient complete a copy of the attached form and return it to the Ethics Committee no later than January 30, 2012.

The attached form should also be used to report details of foreign gifts, pursuant to the statute, as the might be received during calender year 2012. For your guidance in the future, the Foreign Gifts and Exchange Act does not permit acceptance from a foreign government of tangible gifts of more than $100 in value unless accepted on behalf of the United States Government and the gift is deposited with the government within 60 days of acceptance. Further, the Act does not permit acceptance of travel or expences of travel (transportation, food, lodging, and entertainment) with a value of more than $100 unless the travel takes place entirely outsid of the United States, or is approved by the U.S. Department of State under section 108A of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
Chairman

Johny Isakson
Vice Chairman

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Apparently the acceptance of foreign gifts is not only acceptable, it is also quite popular! But there are some very important definitions to be made from within U.S. CODE so as to understand what was actually stated within this memo, and to really see the legal crime that is taking place against the original intent of the constitution and the hidden but true Amendment 13:

First and foremost, we must establish that our Senate and House Members are all employees of the Federal Government, which is called the “United States” corporation, and is referenced as such below. This is quite important information to understand, as it means our Senators and Congressmen, which are hired employees of the United States – not elected representatives or employees of each State – are acting not only in the interests of the United States corporation (the Federal Government located in Washington DC, a district which is in no way a part of the 50 states united), but as individual corporations themselves!

(A) an employee as defined by section 2105 of this title and an officer or employee of the United States Postal Service or of the Postal Regulatory Commission;

(C) and individual employed by, or occupying an office or position in, the government of a territory or possession of the United States or the Government of the District of Columbia;

(D) a member of a uniformed service;

(E) the President and the Vice President;

(F) a Member of Congress as defined bysection 2106of this title (except the Vice President) and any Delegate to the Congress;…

–=–

TITLE 5 > PART III > SUBPART A > CHAPTER 21 >§ 2106. MEMBER OF CONGRESS

For the purpose of this title, “Member of Congress” means the Vice President, a member of the Senate or the House of Representatives, a Delegate to the House of Representatives, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico.

–=–

TITLE 5 > PART 3 > SUBPART A > CHAPTER 21 > § 2105. EMPLOYEE

(a) For the purpose of this title, “employee”, except as otherwise provided by this section or when specifically modified, means an officer and an individual who is—

(1) appointed in the civil service by one of the following acting in an official capacity—

(A) the President;

(B) a Member or Members of Congress, or the Congress;

(C) a member of a uniformed service;

(D) an individual who is an employee under this section;

(E) the head of a Government controlled corporation; or

(F) an adjutant general designated by the Secretary concerned under section 709 (c)of title 32;

(2) engaged in the performance of a Federal function under authority of law or an Executive act; and

(3) subject to the supervision of an individual named by paragraph (1) of this subsection while engaged in the performance of the duties of his position.

–=–

Now that we have established in the government handbook that indeed all Senators and Congressmen, and in fact all government officials and their staff are in fact employees of the United States government according to TITLE 5 and TITLE 2, and that as employees they are bound by this UNITED STATES CODE as referenced above, and not by the people or by the constitution, lets read a bit further into this CODE to find out more about the acceptance of gifts by U.S. employees (the government).

(A) any unit of foreign governmental authority, including any foreign national, State, local, and municipal government;

(B) any international or multinational organization whose membership is composed of any unit of foreign government described in subparagraph (A); and

(C) any agent or representative of any such unit or such organization, while acting as such;

–=–

Did you catch that? Did you understand what Paragraph (A) was stating here?

“(A) Any unit of foreign governmental authority, including any foreign national, State, local, and municipal government…”

Here U.S. CODE lists a State, local, and municipal government (i.e. municipal corporation = a city, town, or district) as a “foreign governmental authority“.

Here, once again the Federal UNITED STATES (10 miles square in Washington DC) is reiterating the fact that it is a foreign corporation that is not part of any of the actual 50 states united (the “union of 50 states”), of which U.S. CODE refers to each state individually as a State (note the capitalized S) implying that each State as both a district of the UNITED STATES and more importantly is property of the UNITED STATES, pledged as collateral for the bankruptcy of the United States.

Let us understand that only a corporation can have employees, and that only a corporation can declare bankruptcy.

From the Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303, we read the statement by Jim Traficant, before he was placed into jail for his indiscriminate outbursts of truth:

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 64, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1994 (House of Representatives – March 17, 1993)

Mr. TRAFICANT.

“Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11.

Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government.

We are setting forth hopefully a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner’s report that will lead to our demise.

I am going to support the rule. I am not sure yet if I will support this budget. I want to hear an awful lot more, not being a member of the committee, and I am not going to vote for things I do not understand or do not like, but let there be no mistake. After 12 years of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, we are standing here.

Let me say this to the minority party. Every program that Ronald Reagan wanted in 1981, he got. Reagan got it. There was a Republican Senate majority and there were 70 Democrats in this House that might as well have been Republicans, and we have the program.

The major assumption was very simple. We are going to cut taxes, put money in the pockets of the American people, and when they spend this money our gross national product is going to rise so great that even though we reduced your tax liability on a percentile basis, we will balance the budget, quoting Ronald Reagan, in 1982. It is going to take the fall of our Congress, I think, for that to happen…

…But let me give one word of caution here today. America already has race wars, let us be honest about it. We already have gender wars, let us be honest about it. We already have age wars, let us be honest about it.

One thing this Congress had better not get involved in and get trapped into is a class war on money. In America, if you can not earn all that you can, there is something wrong and there is no more a spirit of free enterprise.

I want to say this to the Members. We may talk about taxing the rich, but the rich people have already taken their companies and their jobs out of America. Be careful that the rich people do not take their money out of America, because the government already raises our kids, defends our families, educates our kids, feeds our kids, houses our kids, and the government is doing a very poor job of it. I think mom and dad would be better utilized there once again…

…Finally, I do not know if the budget makes one damn bit of difference, because we waive it all the time and I do not think we have ever followed it. I think we have an excellent chairman who worked hard. If we are going to have (a) budget, we should follow it. If not, we once again as Members waste both our time and the people’s time.

Let me say this just in closing. Today is not the mother of all debates and the mother of all decisions. When that tax package comes, you will have the mother of all votes on the floor.

Let me say this, I am not for voting any more taxes on the backs of the American people, because I believe the tax of 1990 put on right here today, and I am very concerned about the tax package being discussed in this Congress. I am one Democrat who believes we should stimulate the private sector. We already have more government jobs than factory jobs, and I think that is an indictment of our Congress. One basic tenet to this Constitution is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and there can be no life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness in America without jobs. I would like to see the mother of all debates center around the jobs bill…”

–=–

Now it is very important to grasp the fact that just because this bill was called a “budget resolution”, it and all other bills and Acts are certainly not limited in their scope of legislation to budgetary legislation. Here are a few examples of these kinds of treasonous and criminal additions that are continuously being placed into these bills and Acts, in the form of earmarks, amendments, demands, points of order, and just downright malfeasance of the legal CODE.

H.CON.RES.64 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] – ENR)

SEC. 8. SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS.

(a) SENSE OF THE CONGRESS- It is the sense of the Congress that–

(1) from time to time the United States Government should sell assets; and

(2) the amounts realized from such asset sales will not recur on an annual basis and do not reduce the demand for credit.

(b) BUDGETARY TREATMENT- For purposes of points of order under this concurrent resolution and the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the amounts realized from sales of assets (other than loan assets) shall not be scored with respect to the level of budget authority, outlays, or revenues.

(g) TRADE-RELATED LEGISLATION-

(1) IN GENERAL- Budget authority and outlays may be allocated to a committee or committees and the revenue aggregates may be reduced for legislation to implement the North American Free Trade Agreement and any other trade-related legislation within such a committee’s jurisdiction if such a committee or the committee of conference on such legislation reports such legislation, if, to the extent that the costs of such legislation are not included in this concurrent resolution on the budget, the enactment of such legislation will not increase (by virtue of either contemporaneous or previously passed deficit reduction) the deficit in this resolution for–

SEC. 11. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING TAX REVENUES AND DEFICIT REDUCTION.

It is the sense of the House of Representatives that any legislation enacting tax increases called for in this budget resolution contain language providing that the net revenues generated by the legislation shall not be counted for the purpose of calculating the amount of any deficit increase called for in section 252(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.

SEC. 12. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES.

(g) EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS- The Senate adopts the provisions of this section–

(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate, and as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of the Senate, and such rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and

(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of the Senate to change those rules (so far as they relate to the Senate) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of the Senate.

–≈–

Section 12 here is some of the best double-speak in the whole bill. It is a Senate Rule giving the Senate its own authority to change its own rules if the current rules are “inconsistent” with the new rules it wishes to create! And the Senate is claiming the constitutional right of the Senate to change any rule it sees fit at any time!!!

What, pray tell, is the point of having rules if those rules can simply be changed at any time by the very entity that is required to follow those rules?

If you aren’t either laughing or crying right now, there’s a problem here! For the ethical Senate has just made a proclamation that it really has no rules; using the constitution as an excuse to bypass or change any current rules by simply creating new and inconsistent rules that trump the old rules!

If the irony of this is still lost on you, then lets consider our 100 prisoners again. Imagine if that council of 6 prisoners, while judging the actions of the rest of the 94 prisoners, came to the conclusion that one or several or all of the 100 prisoners had broken a prison (Senate) Rule. Instead of punishing that prisoner, or properly dismissing, suspending, or terminating his or her abilities to act as an official (in the Senate), the Committee simply changes the rules of the prison (Senate)!

Of course, the whole Senate must vote to change these rules, which consequently makes all 100 of them an accessory to the cover-up of a crime – of the breaking of rules – by creating a new rule that allows the old rule to be broken.

Section 11 states: net revenues generated by the legislation shall not be counted for the purpose of calculating the amount of any deficit increase… What does this mean? Any profits (gains) via taxation or enterprise operations (non-governmental business-type sales) collected will not reduce the debt of the taxpayers! In other words, the House may continue to raise the debt-base of taxpayers (the people) despite the fact that taxation and other revenue is flowing into government, and that extra net money flowing in does not have to be used to pay down that public debt.

Government is not using your tax money properly. It is instead hoarding that money in its investment fund system, and placing more and more bonded indebtedness onto the taxpayer public.

But don’t worry about it… for government is not breaking any rules or laws here. Because remember – government is the rule and law-makers! You see how convenient that is? Think about it… Congressmen and Senators make the rules and laws which govern their own paycheck amounts and benefits received. They legislate their own tax-exempt expense account amounts and what they may spend the money in those accounts on. And as we just read, they can change their own rules to make just about anything they do legal and ethical, even if just temporarily so as to not be scrutinized by judicial review or public admonition.

As a taxpayer, do you have any idea how much money your Senators are allotted by themselves each year for their tax-exempt expense accounts? How much do you think the average Senator needs to cover his expenses?

100’s? – 1,000’s? – 10’s of 1,000’s? – 100’s of 1,000’s…?

Well lets start with the most costly expense to taxpayers, the Senator’s personal tax-exempt expense accounts…

According to the “2010 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances” report issued by Congress in 2011, a report listing the money given to, spent, and what money is left over from those appropriations (This report can be downloaded here: http://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/combStmt/previous_rpts.htm), here is just a part of what it takes to fund the spending habits of our 100 Senators and staff, all tax-exempt of course:

The report states that $422,000,000was appropriated for use in the personal expense accounts of these just these 100 Senators.Of that $422 million, $400,590,512.37was spent (outlay) for the personal and office expenses of these 100 Senators.

That represents an average of about $4,005,900 per Senator for “personal” and “office” expenses. Tax free. Spent on anything they want within their own “rules”.

The account that holds this appropriated money gained about $13,600,000 over 2009 – leaving the ending account balance at $81,448,251.53. This amount is in an investment fund, gaining interest and other gains, and will be apportioned for the next years expense accounts – it is not given back to the government for budgetary purposes. Is this ethical behavior?

This should be a shocking revelation to you. But perhaps you are thinking that these ladies and gentlemen of the Senate require such vast amounts of money to conduct business, after all it does include “office” expenses, doesn’t it?

Guess again…

Here are some of the other listed expense accounts that Senators and their staff are allowed to draw from (outlay) or are paid from:

What is this office called the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the Senate?

“The Office of the Legislative Counsel provides legislative drafting services for the Committees and Members of the United States Senate. The Office is strictly nonpartisan and refrains from formulating policy. Legislative drafters strive to turn every request into clear, concise, and legally effective legislative language.

Members and staff of the Senate can rest assured that communication with the Office is always confidential. The Office has a long history of providing unbiased services to both majority and minority parties using the utmost discretion.

Any Senator or staff member of the Senate may request assistance from the Office. The Office does not interact with members of the public, except indirectly through their Congressional representatives.”

“The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.”

I don’t really think I need to expand on the fact that nothing our congress is doing should ever be in secret or be done with discretion from the people and states for which they supposedly represent. But, for the record, the “BAR” Association is a secret society, with secret oaths, and secret proceedings. Just thought you’d like to know…

–=–

But wait, there’s more…

Did you know that the Senators have granted themselves from the Treasury of the United States (taxpayers) the tax-exempt use of what is called the “Senate Hair Care Revolving Fund“? That’s right, The Federal Government has a fund that was created specifically for the hair care of its Senators and staff!

The “Official Mail Costs, Senate” column states that the Federal Government appropriated $300,000 to this cost, adding to the existing balance already appropriated for Senate mailing services of $345,430.58. And after $115,546.71 of this money was actually used for mail, $161,082.59 was “withdrawn or used for other transactions”, the fund balance was left for fiscal year 2010 at $368,801.28 – a gain of a bit more than $22,000.

With just the tax-exempt funds and accounts listed here, keeping in mind that all funds and accounts are not listed here, we get a pretty good indication that the majority of office expenses are pretty much covered here, between the haircare and health club funds, the paper, pencil and mail cost funds, the photographs and audio funds, the gift shop fund, the use of foreign currency fund, the contingent expenses funds, and the miscellaneous use funds, which likely cover just about anything else.

And yet over $4 million dollars of taxpayer money was needed per Senator to cover their extra tax-exempt personal expenses.

Is that ethical to you?

How could this type of spending possibly go under the noses of the Senate Ethics Committee? And who in the name of all that is Holy would allow these 100 people and their “staff” to be appropriated with almost half a billion dollars for their personal expenses?

Ever heard of the Senate Appropriations Committee? That’s right. The Senate appropriates this money to their own expense accounts! They make their own rules…

THIS IS YOUR GOVERNMENT!

Isn’t it time that we stop supporting this system of corruption and greed? Can we continue to allow these corporate lawyers, bankers, and business-men and women so blatantly and publicly steal from our taxpayer base while children go hungry; while 100’s of thousands of veterans are homeless on the streets; and while those same people legislate our private sector jobs out of the United States?

Aren’t these the same corporate persons that tell us that government owned corporations like Fannie Mae, AIG, and General Motors are too big to fail? Is anything too big to fail?

The more important question is: has government failed the people?

Isn’t it time to acknowledge the original 13th Amendment and ban lawyers and corporations from government? Isn’t it time to put men (male and female) back into government, not corporate persons with massive investments in the very corporate structure they are in charge of regulating? And isn’t it time to abolish political parties, which are nothing more than private non-governmental associations who seek financial and political benefit for themselves and their lobbyists, and not the people of America?

Remember, these are democrats and republicans, and there is no distinction between party lines while these men and women work together to create the political landscape to make organized crime both legal and ethical, according to their own rule-making authority.

The truth is, there are no ethics in government. For only living, breathing people can possess morals and ethics – whereas a corporation legally cannot have a religious or ethical position. The vast majority of your representatives are wealthy corporations. They are artificial persons; not of mankind.

And one last thing…

If you aren’t familiar with Senate Ethics Committee Member Mark L. Pryor, you really need to see this…

Did you really think that the Supreme Court would rule against “Obama-care”?

Just what exactly do you think the Supreme Court is?

Perhaps a reality check is in order here. And for that matter, a little history lesson…

–=–

This tome of research was originally planned as an educational-documentary movie script, but with the election process just around the corner and rumors of a major internet “change”, I feel it absolutely necessary to give it my best shot to create a wide-awake, openhearted, non-consenting public. In fact, my whole mock-presidential campaign was to expose the following facts – and that you the people cannot, no matter how much campaigning you do, elect me as president (or for that matter Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, or any alternative 3rd party or non-two-party candidate) because you don’t get to vote for president.

Perhaps this all was dreaming too big on my part; that I can wake up an entire nation, but here it goes anyway…

We will now delve extensively into the Department Of Justice as well as the electoral college, and we will learn exactly what the role of the Attorney General is – and I guarantee you that none of these things are anything close to what you might think you know or have been taught in your public (government) school system. In short, we will learn the actual law, and that the law and the entirety of the United States does not exist without your contractual consent to it.

Sit back and hold on, for it is my hope that this is going to be a serious wake up call. I recommend that you read and re-read this entire presentation several times, until these definitions and concepts are familiar and completely understood, for you cannot be free without the knowledge of what enslaves you, especially if you do not know the hidden legal language of the Law Society. Certain words and phrases are underlined, highlighted, and emboldened. Do not take this lightly. Give these your special attention. And by the end, be sure you know the legal meanings of all these words.

If you read nothing else before you cast your vote for the office of president this year, I beg of you to take the time to learn why your vote absolutely does not, never has, and never will count towards the actual official election process of the president of the United States. This is the law. It is more accurate to say that your vote as a registered United States voter is not officially counted in the actual election process for the office of the president of the United States.

So why do you vote?

Why does the government waste our time allowing us to go through the charade of voting for the popular fake-election of president by the “people”?

Why will going through the process of “voting” to replace Obama not do anything to actually officially or legally replace Obama?

And why is Obama-care absolutely constitutional according to the Supreme Court?

Let’s find out…

–=–

What Was The Original Supreme Court?

–=–

The so-called “Founding Fathers” have become the stuff of legend.

They are credited as being radical new thinkers whose ideals were original in their context, and that these ideas created the first free country and a modern republic. And yet, the entire structure of government for the Federal United States, as well as the concepts of individual and state’s rights, liberty, and social contracts, date back not only to the Mayflower Compact, but to the roots of British history and common law, as well as Roman law in the Roman “Republic” and in the Magna Carta, created in 1215. In fact, as it turns out, everything that our “Founding Fathers” did in their declaration of independence was specifically to preserve their “natural-born rights as Englishmen“, which was in fact a perfectly legal pursuit as a crown colony. The Crown of England, in fact, had the same reaction to this declaration and the following constitution as the Northern “States” did when the Southern “States” seceded from the corrupt central government of the United States in the 1860’s – in order to form their own more perfect union and constitution in the South… which was for the Crown to unlawfully call it treason and to take its control back through occupation and military rule.

Why were the colonists of America always, and even to this day, so interested in retaining their English-born rights?

Resolution #2 of the Declaration of Rights of the Stamp Act Congress on October 19, 1765, was written:

“That His Majesty’s liege subjects in these colonies are entitled to all the inherent rights and privileges of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain.“

The “Charter of Massachusetts Bay (colony)” issued by the king in 1629 proclaimed that the people of the colony:

…shall have and enjoy all liberties and Immunities of free and naturall Subjects within any of the Domynions of Us, our Heires or Successors, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever, as if they and everie of them were borne within the Realme of England.

The colonists wanted nothing more than and insisted upon being treated as natural-born Englishmen with all rights and privileges thereof. This was reflected in every facet of the New America. And it is part of the basis of the term God-given natural rights, as the “king” was considered to be of “God” – the “divine” right of kings…

Thomas Jefferson himself, in a letter to Henry Lee on May 8, 1825, wrote about the Declaration of Independence that it was:

“…with respect to our rights, and the acts of the British government contravening those rights, there was but one opinion on this side of the water. All American Whigs thought alike on these subjects. When forced, therefore, to resort to arms for redress,an appeal to thetribunal of the world was deemed proper for our justification. This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c..”

One could translate this as the freedom of the press, where that declaration was written as an appeal to pity by the rest of the world – an appeal to the court of popular opinion – and a reminder of the already historically established philosophies that were re-worded in the constitution and declaration.

It is also important to make the distinction between natural and political (contractual) “independence”. Independence, as a legal description or term, does not automatically mean free and clear of something as it might be perceived or misconstrued in every day conversation:

INDEPENDENCE. A state of perfect irresponsibility to any superior; the United States are free and independent of all earthly power. 2. Independence may be divided into political and natural independence. By the former (political independence) is to be understood that we have contracted no tieexcept those which flow from the three great natural rights ofsafety, liberty and property. The latter (natural independence) consists in the power of being able to enjoy a permanent well-being, whatever may be the disposition of those from whom we call ourselves independent. In that sense a nation may be independent with regard to most people, but not independent of the whole world. Vide on of Independence. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

And just what does the 5th Amendment to the Constitution actually say about this?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So the constitution states quite clearly that your natural rights of life (safety), liberty, and property can in fact be taken away from you with “due process of law and just compensation”. This is because these are actually your political rights enumerated, not your natural ones. This is not a protection from tyranny of government, but is instead tyranny defined! And this “right” – to have your life, liberty, and property taken away from you – is literally in the hands of the government created federal judicial system. As we will see, this is extremely deceptive and problematic with regards to the “justice” doled out by the “justice system”. Thus, the Bouvier’s Law Dictionary definition of “independence” above perfectly describes the illusion that we all have of our constitutional (political) “independence”. As contracted citizens of this government, natural independence is forfeited and political independence does not exist…

We must also understand that the “Judicial Branch” of this constitution was not in any way new as either the highest court of jurisdiction or of being a so-called “check and balance” of the other government entities. A government creation is not really in a position to monitor another government creation. This fallacy is why we are in the mess we are in today – government supervision and regulation of itself!

Within the British Empire, the highest court within a colony was often called the “Supreme Court”.

Most importantly to the Federal government and to any government who uses this structure of legal precedent, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court cannot be challenged once the government appointed Court members decide on what “justice” is. Therefore, once the Supreme Court decides that something is constitutional – like war, capital punishment, crime and punishment, fines, taxes, incarceration, eminent domain, and other government intrusions into the life (safety), liberty, and property of the people of the United States, the people have no recourse for the taking of their life, liberty, and property. In this way, the Judicial branch serves as a “check and balance” that ensures the tyranny of government is never challenged.

This hierarchy of jurisdiction is called stare decisis.

STARE DECISIS – To abide or adhere to decided cases. 2. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports. Mr. Greenleaf has made a collection of such cases, to which the reader is referred. Vide 1 Kent, Com. 477; Livingst. Syst. of Pen. Law, 104, 5. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

Supreme Court decisions are deemed to be binding upon lower courts. Importantly, this is to ensure uniformity in the legal functioning of the United States and its corporate structure. This uniformity is further ensured by requiring BAR certification for the “practice” of the now copyrighted public policy that is called “law” in the United States. Civil law jurisdictions, however, are not generally considered to apply, and so supreme court decisions are not necessarily binding. But the decisions of the supreme court are meant to provide a very strong precedent (jurisprudence constante) for both itself and all lower courts.

So what does jurisdiction mean?

JURISDICTION –Practice. A power constitutionally conferred upon a judge or magistrate, to take cognizance of, and decide causes according to law, and to carry his sentence into execution. 6 Pet. 591; 9 John. 239. The tract of land or district within which a judge or magistrate has jurisdiction, is called his territory, and his power in relation to his territory is called his territorial jurisdiction. 2. Every act of jurisdiction exercised by a judge without (outside of) his territory, either by pronouncing sentence or carrying it into execution, is null. An inferior court has no jurisdiction beyond what is expressly delegated. 1 Salk. 404, n.; Gilb. C. P. 188; 1 Saund. 73; 2 Lord Raym. 1311; and see Bac. Ab. Courts, &c., C, et seq; Bac. Ab. Pleas, E 2. 3. Jurisdiction is original, when it is conferred on the court in the first instance, which is called original jurisdiction; (q. v.) or it is appellate, which is when an appeal is given from the judgment of another court. Jurisdiction is also civil, where the subject-matter to be tried is not of a criminal nature; or criminal, where the court is to punish crimes. Some courts and magistrates have both civil and criminal jurisdiction… 4. It is the law which gives jurisdiction;the consent of, parties, cannot, therefore, confer it, in a matter which the law excludes. 1 N. & M. 192; 3 M’Cord, 280; 1 Call. 55; 1 J. S. Marsh. 476; 1 Bibb, 263; Cooke, 27; Minor, 65; 3 Litt. 332; 6 Litt. 303; Kirby, 111; 1 Breese, 32; 2 Yerg. 441; 1 Const. R. 478. But where the court has jurisdiction of the matter, and the defendant has some privilege which exempts him from the jurisdiction, he may waive the privilege. 5 Cranch, 288; 1 Pet. 449; 8 Wheat. 699; 4 W. C. C. R. 84; 4 M’Cord, 79; 4 Mass. 593; Wright, 484. See Hardin, 448; 2 Wash. 213. 5. Courts of inferior jurisdiction must act within their jurisdiction, and so it must appear upon the record. 5 Cranch, 172 Pet. C. C. R. 36; 4 Dall. 11; 2 Mass. 213; 4 Mass. 122; 8 Mass. 86; 11 Mass. 513; Pr. Dec. 380; 2 Verm. 329; 3 Verm. 114; 10 Conn. 514; 4 John. 292; 3 Yerg. 355; Walker, 75; 9 Cowen, 227; 5 Har. & John. 36; 1 Bailey, 459; 2 Bailey, 267. But the legislature may, by a general or special law, provide otherwise. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

JURISPRUDENCE – The science of the law. By science here, is understood that connection of truths which is founded on principles either evident in themselves, or capable of demonstration; a collection of truths of the same kind, arranged in methodical order. In a more confined sense, jurisprudence is the practical science of giving a wise interpretation to the laws, and making a just application of them to all cases as they arise. In this sense, it is the habit of judging the same questions in the same manner, and by this course of judgments forming precedents. 1 Ayl. Pand. 3 Toull. Dr. Civ. Fr. tit. prel. s. 1, n. 1, 12, 99; Merl. Rep. h. t.; 19 Amer. Jurist, 3. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

The original Federal United States Supreme Court was created within the jurisprudence of the “organic” constitution “for” the united states of America via Article 3, as the third lawful “branch” of government – a check and balance for the Executive and Legislative branches. This organic constitution was very specific, and was meant to be the permanent structure of the three branches of government.

“The term “organic” statute originated from the French term Reglement Organique, which means regulations for an organization or governmental body.

Organic statute is a statute that establishes an administrative agency or local government and defines its authorities and responsibilities.

An organic statute forms the foundation of a government, corporation or other organization’s body of rules. A constitution is a particular from of organic law for a sovereign state.”

And so, for the purposes of the original, as-written constitution of 1786, the description of the constitution as “organic” is best understood as “original”. Once it was amended, it was not organic (original) any more. The foundational organic nature of the constitution is broken with every amendment added, for a foundation is not meant to be altered, just as food is either organic or altered (non-organic/non-original -vs- as natural law [nature] intended).

But as we are all no doubt aware, everything certainly changes…

On march 27, 1861, the dis-satisfied representative congressmen of seven of the “southern” States decided to leave the “union” as was their right as constitutionally established “sovereign” nation States, according to the very constitution that organically (originally) held that union together, in order to form what many scholars claim to be their own new nation of southern states based on the original intent of that same organic constitution for the united states of America. These elected representatives walked out of Congress, never to return. This was indeed abandonmentsine die – (without day – when the court or other body rise at the end of a session or term they adjourn “sine die”). At this critical juncture at the end of true American history, Congress ceased to exist as a lawful (organic, constitutional) body, and could no longer lawfully declare war (without all congressmen present in vote). In the end, 11 states in total lawfully left the union via constitutional succession and declared their sovereignty and independence from the United States (Washington D.C.).

With the union now divided and the lawful (constitutional) congress canceled, drastic measures had to be taken by the remaining elite structure of this defunct “government” corporation. And so on April 15th, 1861 (not so coincidentally the now “national tax day”), Abraham Lincoln – who was no longer a lawful or constitutional president and was now acting under military rule without congress – issued the first Executive Order #1, which placed military rule (martial law) over the entirety of the U.S. territories. This soon became known as the “civil war” against the south by the now unlawful government – a government held together in continuity by the first declared state of emergency and the first declared “Executive Order” (#1) by the first unlawful and unconstitutional president, Abraham Lincoln. This was also referred to as the War of Northern Aggression. But the war was, as we will see, a war to force civil lawon all the people of the United States.

These General War Executive Orders were, as they still are today, declared without congressional approval or consent by the Executive:

Proclamation Calling MilitiaandConvening Congress

April 15, 1861

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law,

Now therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, and the laws, have thought fitto call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details, for this object, will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.

I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.

I deem it proper to say that thefirst service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to re-possess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.

And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.

Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at 12 o’clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July, next, then and there to consider and determine, such measures, as, in their wisdom, the public safety, and interest may seem to demand.

In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington this fifteenth day of April in the year of our Lord One thousand, Eight hundred and Sixtyone, and of the Independence the United States the Eightyfifth.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

.

(Author’s note: Take note here that in no way could the Congress of the organic united states of America convene together lawfully, as the southern state representatives were purposefully absent in abandonment of the ever-increasing corrupt and unfair legislature. In this Executive Order, the United States and the Constitution are capitalized and are both not followed by the words “of America. Why demonize England when the United States was worse to its own people?)

.

Executive Order 1January 22, 1862

The purpose of this war is to attack, pursue, and destroy a rebellious enemy and to deliver the country from danger menaced by traitors. Alacrity, daring, courageous spirit, and patriotic zeal on all occasions and under every circumstance are expected from the Army of the United States. In the prompt and spirited movements and daring battle of Mill Springs the nation will realize its hopes, and the people of the United States will rejoice to honor every soldier and officer who proves his courage by charging with the bayonet and storming intrenchments or in the blaze of the enemy’s fire.

By order of the President:

EDWIN M. STANTON,

Secretary of War.

PRESIDENT’S GENERAL WAR ORDER NO. I.

.

(Author’s note: The lawful people acting within their constitutional and God-given natural rights are now considered “rebellious enemies” and “traitors”. In fact, the president himself was the traitor, defiling the organic constitution and the rights it stood for.)

.

Executive Order – General War Order No. 1January 27, 1862

Ordered, That the 22d day of February, 1862, be the day for a general movement of the land and naval forces of the United States against the insurgent forces; that especially the army at and about Fortress Monroe. the Army of the Potomac, the Army of Western Virginia, the army near Munfordville, Ky., the army and flotilla at Cairo, and a naval force in the Gulf of Mexico be ready to move on that day.

That all other forces, both land and naval, with their respective commanders, obey existing orders for the time and be ready to obey additional orders when duly given.

That the heads of Departments, and especially the Secretaries of War and of the Navy, with all their subordinates, and the General in Chief, with all other commanders and subordinates of land and naval forces, will severally be held to their strict and full responsibilities for prompt execution of this order.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

.

.

Very importantly, this action by and against the southern States by the United States brought out what are referred to as the “Reconstruction Amendments” (13th, 14th, 15th) and later on the 16th, and 17th Amendments – or what I like to refer to as the legal person-ization and incorporation of the “people” of America from free men into indentured debt slaves, from the years 186o-1871. Or we could call this the corporeal enslavement of the people by turning us into own-able and transferable things (chattels), with the presumed consent of our unsuspecting, purposefully deceived and uneducated, incorporeal souls.

The 13th Amendment didn’t end slavery, it made it legal for government to create them by convicting them of a crime. The people alone, not the government, could no longer own or indenture themselves.

13th Amendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 2 is ultimately the important clause here, as we will read later. The legislation created by congress allowing private prisons to use prisoners to work for slave wages is just one example of how the 13th Amendment created legalized slavery and indentured servitude in the “United States” jurisdiction.

–=–

What Is A Constitution?

–=–

Should we romanticize the “constitution” as our cherished law of the land that was derived from divine inspiration without question?

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856 – the only law dictionary officially incorporated by Congress as part of the United States constitution and officially as part of the Supreme Court – let’s us know what the word “constitution” really stands for:

CONSTITUTION – contracts. The constitution of a contract, is the making of the contract as, the written constitution of a debt. 1 Bell’s Com. 332, 5th ed.

CONSTITUTOR – civil law. He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another; and this is always a principal obligation. Inst. 4, 6, 9.

(That’s you, by the way… you who are reading this as a citizen – you are the “constitutors” of the “constitution”)

TO CONSTITUTE – contracts. To empower, to authorize. In the common form of letters of attorney, these words occur, “I nominate, constitute and appoint.”

CONSTITUENT – He who gives authority to another to act for him. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 893.

CONSTITUIMUS – A Latin word which signifies we constitute. Whenever the king of England is vested with the right of creating a new office, he must use proper words to do so, for example, erigimus, constituimus, c . Bac. Ab. Offices, &c. E.

CHATTELS – property. A term which includes all kinds of property, except the freehold or things which are parcel of it. It is a more extensive term than goods or effects. Debtors taken in execution, captives, apprentices, are accounted chattels. Godol. Orph. Leg. part 3, chap. 6, 1.

Of course, Article 6 of the constitution states very clearly that the United States is a debtor nation:

“All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.”

There was never independence if this country was founded in debt to England and France.

–=–

What Is The United States?

–=–

It is also important to know the Bouvier’s Law Dictionary definition given in 1856 of the “United States”:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – …5. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law. 6. The states, individually, retain all the powers which they possessed at the formation of the constitution, andwhich have not been given to congress. (q. v.)

–=–

***Remember this part, “which have not been given to congress“. As we saw with the 13th Amendment, this clause is oh so important with regards to the “reconstruction” of the United States and its “constitution” as a new organic (original) debt contract during this period of martial law. It will come as a shock just how much we the people have indeed given to congress…

So, the question becomes: What powers did the individual states retain? And which ones were “given to congress”?

For this, we must consider that a State was nothing more than the government incorporation of certain United States territories. Each territory, for the purposes of becoming a State of the Union, had something very sinister in common. This common element was a contract called the “Enabling Acts”, and were a uniform set of contractual agreements that were pre-determined and agreed to by all territories in order to become States (incorporated Federal Districts) of the United States.

Each Territory agreed to being a Federal District, and to having a Federal Governor and a Federal State District Attorney. These enabling legislation covenants were passed before each territory became a state, as a prerequisite for statehood and before the state constitution could be accepted by the United States.

More importantly, we can read in the following State “Enabling Acts” that all territorial unappropriated and non-deeded land was granted to the United States via these contracts of statehood. Once the people were made to became citizens via the 14th Amendment, they lost their independence and became subject to the UNITED STATES jurisdiction.

Most western states have the following types of verbiage. Read carefully…

Colorado Enabling Acts:

§ 4. Constitutional convention – requirements of constitution. That the members of the convention thus elected shall meet at the capital of said territory, on a day to be fixed by said governor, chief justice, and United States attorney, not more than sixty days subsequent to the day of election, which time of meeting shall be contained in the aforesaid proclamation mentioned in the third section of this act, and after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said territory, that they adopt the constitution of the United States; whereupon the said convention shall be and is hereby authorized to form a constitution and state government for said territory; provided, that the constitution shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except Indians not taxed, and not be repugnant to the constitution of the United States and the principles of the declaration of independence; and, provided further, that said convention shall provide by an ordinance irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said state; first, that perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested in person or property, (only) on account of his or her mode of religious worship; secondly, that the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without(outside of the jurisdiction of) said state shall never be taxed higher than the lands belonging to residents thereof, and that no taxes shall be imposed by the state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States.

Note the distinction between US citizens that are both within (residents of) and “without” of the declared United States jurisdiction of this new State – meaning those with already appropriated land.

And within the Utah enabling acts for the Utah State constitution, in similar uniform legal language (Commercial CODE), it states:

…Second. That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States… Third. That the debts and liabilities of said Territory, under authority of the Legislative Assembly thereof, shall be assumed and paid by said State.

Note that the “debts and liabilities” portion of this is a demand that the citizens of the new “State” become “constitutors” of the constitution, which, as with all constitutions, makes this a debt contract. Also note that Indian lands are absolutely in no way independent of the United States Federal corporation.

To put this into perspective: If a state government goes away, the land that the fictional corporation (state government) sat upon is still a territory of the United States. States are not independent either politically or naturally, for a state is not of God. A “State” is a fictional incorporated creation of the United States corporation. Only men can be naturally and completely independent of the United States.

These “Enabling Acts” can be found for most of the non-original States as prerequisites to their State constitutions.

–=–

The Southern States: A New Organic Constitution Is Created By Conquest

–=–

In August 1866, once the civil war was ended and brothers had killed brothers, president Andrew Johnson moved to restore the former Confederate states back into to the unlawful Union. In March 1867, the First Reconstruction Act placed the South under military occupation within federal military districts. Georgia, Alabama, and Florida for instance, became part of the “Third Military District” under the command of General John Pope. Ex-Confederates (the people) were kept from voting or holding public office under military rule, and were replaced with what were referred to as Freedmen, Carpetbaggers, and Scalawags – the Whigs who originally opposed the succession.

Suddenly, the confederate landowners of these states had lost their land rights, and were now faced with the fact that freedmen had the right of vote. These “freedmen” began to live freely on these lands and plantations against the wishes of these confederate land-owners.

FREEDMEN – The name formerly given by the Romans to those persons who had been released from a State of servitude. Vide Liberti libertini. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

RIGHT – …3. It is that quality in a person by which he can do certain actions, or possess certain things which belong to him by virtue of some title. In this sense, we use it when we say that a man has a right to his estate or a right to defend himself... 2. In this latter sense alone, will this word be here considered. Right is the correlative of duty, for, wherever one has a right due to him, some other must owe him a duty. 1 Toull. n. 96. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

In Georgia, black voters were forcibly registered to vote and now sudenly outnumbered the white voters, which sparked the forming of the KKK and the eventual violence that led to the expelling of the new black senators from the Georgia legislature despite the state constitution’s forbidding of blacks serving in office. From October 29 through November 2, 1867, elections were held for delegates to a new constitutional convention in Atlanta, not in the nations capital, and again did not allow ex-confederates (white land and plantation owners) to participate. Charles Jenkins was the first post-war elected governor, coming to office in January 1868. But he refused to authorize state funds for the state constitutional convention (which would have created a new organic State constitution for Georgia), and this government was yet again unlawfully dissolved by General George Meade and replaced by a military governor under military rule. Georgia was returned to military rule to quell violence after Ulysses S. Grant was “elected” president, being one of only two ex-Confederate states to vote against Grant.

All of this was “unconstitutional”, but only when using that word as it refers to the original organic 1786 constitution, as we will see. The United States is still under military rule, which is the very reason that martial law can still be declared with the stroke of a presidential pen, just as Abraham Lincoln first penned it in 1861. If a state were to attempt to succeed from the “union” today, martial law would be declared and military rule would ensue until the rebellion could be squashed, no different than it was then. And the “civil” law would be forcibly restored. As long as the elected governments cooperate with the United States and its uniform rules and codes, martial law is not declared and military rule is not so obvious – thus the illusion of being a free country is maintained.

In March 1869, the new United States Congress again barred Georgia’s representatives from their seats, causing military rule to resume in December 1869. By January 1870, General Alfred H. Terry as commander of the Third Military District forcibly removed from the legislature all ex-Confederates, replacing them with the Republican runners-up, and reinstated all expelled black legislators. Once again, there was a Republican majority in the legislature friendly to the United States corporation.

And finally, in July of 1870, Georgia was forcibly readmitted to the Union – a military conquest – and the newly elected but unlawful and (organically) unconstitutional General Assembly ratified the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States. A Republican governor named Rufus Bullock was inaugurated. He was from New York, not Georgia.

Section 1 of Amendment 14 states:

Section 1. All personsborn or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizensof the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities ofcitizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And with the unlawful and unconstitutional passing of this amendment, everything changed, and every man became a person and a citizen under presumed consent.

–=–

What Happened To The Original Supreme Court?–=–

Under military rule, the courts must of course be recreated into military courts.

In 1870, with the reconstruction of the United States well under way and a new organic constitution established through amendment, Congress passed the “Act to Establish the Department of Justice (DOJ)“, setting this replacement up as “an executive department of the government of the United States“, officially coming into existence with the signing of the presidential pen on July 1, 1870. The Attorney General of the United States became the appointed Cabinet level political position in charge of this new department.

Just one problem here… this Act to create the Department of Justice had the tiny little side-effect of all but nullifying what was always considered to be the independent third branch of government as a check and balance – the stuff of legend – the “Judicial Branch”. And so the DOJ became for all intents and purposes the new Judicial Branch of government. But this was not the traditional branch of government we all believe it to be… for it was now a branchof theExecutive Department of government (of the president), and in modern times now includes:

This Executive Department is headed by the appointed Attorney General of the United States – whom is required to be a BAR Association member. The “legal” system in this country has been contracted over to this 100% private association called the American Bar Association (ABA), a representative union and advocacy club for attorneys, which all but monopolizes the entirety of the administration of the law and the legal profession with the help of federal and state laws requiring this trust. Jurisprudence, the science and administration of law, has been fundamentally usurped by this private association. In fact, the Supreme Court wont even hear a case unless it is from a BAR accredited attorney or one who has been approved by another BAR member. In short, the BAR decides what cases will be heard by the Supreme Court, and the court denies cases that aren’t approved by the ABA.

The under-appreciated significance of the BAR Association in the selection of Supreme Court Justices needs to be mentioned here. Of course, the American Bar Association was formed just after the reconstruction process of the United States, in 1878. Since the 1950’s, the ABA has participated in the federal judicial nomination process by vetting nominees and giving them a rating ranging from “not qualified” to “well qualified.” In 2005, the ABA gave John Roberts, George W. Bush’s nomination for Chief Justice of the United States, a unanimous “well-qualified” rating. In 2006, the ABA gave a unanimous “well-qualified” rating to Judge Samuel Alito, Bush’s appointee for Sandra Day O’Connor’s Associate Justice position.

It is also quite important to note that this private association takes an official, purposefully biased stance on certain issues, making the ABA a politically oriented association of more than significant power. For instance, it has an official stance on abortion – the BAR is pro-abortion. The ABA requires collegial programs to offer “Affirmative Action” in their courses which would lead to an ABA accreditation. And it has an official stance on gun control…

From it’s website called the “Standing (ABA) Committee On Gun Violence”:

Regulation of Firearms as Consumer Products The ABA supports enactment of legislation to provide authority to the Treasury Department to regulate firearms as consumer products, to set minimum mandatory safety standards, to issue recalls of defective products and prohibit sales of firearms failing to meet minimum safety standards, and to disseminate safety information to the public.

Again, the significance of having such official political views by such an organization is problematic at the least. This means that in a gun control case, where all attorneys and the judge who sits on the case making the final decision, they will all have the pressure of the official stance of the organization they are forced to be members of when making decisions on such national issues, and in taking away basic “constitutional” and/or natural rights.

Can a gun-owner get a “fair trial” if his defending attorney, the prosecuting attorney, and his presiding judge are all three members of the ABA?

Also notice that the executive office of all U.S. Attorneys, including U.S. State Attorney Generals and Legal Councils are within the DOJ, as well as all things related to law enforcement. Also, another top DOJ official is the Solicitor General, who just happens to represent the federal government in cases heard before the US Supreme Court, and would be doing so against another BAR attorney as the prosecutor.

What is the only thing in the entire court/legal system that is seemingly missing from this list? The Supreme Court itself. So let’s examine this body of supposedly independent justices…

The members (justices) of the supreme court are attorneys… BAR’d attorneys, to be exact. This alone is disturbing to anyone who knows the history of the BAR (British Accreditation Registry). But what is more problematic is the very structure of that court and how these “justices” are appointed to their positions of power – the power to declare legislative and Executive public opinion (positive law) as either constitutional or unconstitutional with the self-proclaimed authority of what it claims to be constitutional “judicial review”.

The inherent problem with this structure? The Executive Branch appoints the Supreme Court Justices with the approval of the Legislative Branch.

Hmmm… who else is part of the Executive branch of government? Oh yeah… President Obama. In fact he’s the head of the entire Executive Branch, which also makes him the true head of the Department of Justice. For while the president has the privilege of appointing non-elected officials to be the “secretaries” or heads of these individual departments like the DOJ with the delegated authority of the Executive, the president is ultimately responsible for everything that happens within the Executive Branch. After all, he is the only person that was actually “elected” in the whole Executive Branch!

To put this into easily understood terms, the whole Supreme Court is appointed by the office of the president of the United States, who just so happens to also be a BAR attorney this time around. Can you have a separation of powers if the Executive is a member of the judicial BAR? About 56 senators and 36% of congress are also BAR attorneys. The BAR Attorney General was appointed by the BAR president of the United States. The BAR Solicitor General was also appointed by the BAR President of the United States.

You see the problem here?

To call this a conflict of interest is laughable in its underwhelming description of the “judicial” governance as a “check-and-balance” system for this government. And for anyone who is reading this that still entertains the ridiculous notion that there is still any form of “separation of powers” in these “branches” of government – you need your head examined… or you just need to read the following case.

–=–

The Strange But Legal Case Against Eric Holder

–=–

Imagine if an old-time mafia-boss appointed the governor, the chief of police, the mayors, the judges, and the prosecuting attorney of his turf (city/state) where he and his appointed mafia gang members commit daily their organized crime. Well… you don’t have to imagine, because that is exactly what happens every time the president makes his cabinet and judicial appointments. Only instead of turf, they call it his jurisdiction.

As if to help clarify this scenario, a news story just recently broke for your reading pleasure. If nothing else, this article from “The Associated Press” should clear up any misconceptions about the Supreme or any other federal Court (and they’re all federal) with regards to their perceived independence and bias from the legislature and the Executive. My notes are in (Red):

Washington • The Justice Department declared Friday that Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to withhold information about a bungled gun-tracking operation from Congress does not constitute a crime and he won’t be prosecuted for contempt of Congress. (Note that this declaration was not made from inside of a courtroom or made by a jury of his peers, and therefore it will never be heard inside of a court room, nor, more importantly, by the people in a grand jury. Here we see that by the act of denying Congress access to the Judicial (DOJ), the Executive has no check or balance. Congress itself cannot prosecute – it must move the case into “judicial review” utilizing the DOJ!)

The House voted Thursday afternoon to find Holder in criminal and civil contempt for refusing to turn over the documents. President Barack Obama invoked his executive privilege authority and ordered Holder not to turn over materials about executive branch deliberations and internal recommendations. (In case you missed that, the president’s appointment was just following the presidents orders. So really, Obama should be on trial for gunrunning, not his minion. Executive privilege is code for the fact that there are no checks and balances but those consented to by the Executive. Executive privilege is what a dictator has who is above his own laws.)

In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, the department (DOJ) said that it will not bring the congressional contempt citation against Holder to a federal grand jury and that it will take no other action to prosecute the attorney general. Dated Thursday, the letter was released Friday. (Note that this decision leaves no one left to prosecute. The Executive Branch has just side-stepped the entire criminal justice system… Of course, that’s because the executive literally IS the entire criminal justice system (DOJ). Get it? Would you prosecute yourself if you had the choice [executive privilege] not to? Think about it… Would a king punish himself in his own “court“?)

Deputy Attorney General James Cole said the decision is in line with long-standing Justice Department practice across administrations of both political parties. (That’s the deputy attorney, who’s employed by the Attorney General and the DOJ, by the way!)

“We will not prosecute an executive branch official under the contempt of Congress statute for withholding subpoenaed documents pursuant to a presidential assertion of executive privilege,” Cole wrote. (Translation: The Executive Branch will not prosecute the Executive Branch!!! We WILL NOT prosecute an executive branch official because we are not a constitutional government, we are a corporation with a charter that we happen to call a constitution. There is no judicial branch of government any more as a check and balance, since all law and justice functions were transferred to the DOJ. And if there was (is), we would never allow it to reach the Judicial Branch in a criminal case because we have the power and privilege to stop it. I mean… we aren’t going to prosecute ourselves, sillies!)

In its letter, the department (DOJ) relied in large part on a Justice Department legal opinion crafted during Republican Ronald Reagan’s presidency. (Did you catch that? The Justice Department relied on a Justice Department legal opinion!!! Double-speak doesn’t just happen in “1984”, and war certainly is peace!)

Although the House voted Thursday to find Holder in criminal and civil contempt, Republicans probably are still a long way from obtaining documents they want for their inquiry into Operation Fast and Furious, a flawed gun-tracking investigation focused on Phoenix-area gun shops by Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (So Congress is trying to obtain documents about the Justice Department from the accused head of the Justice Department about a Justice Department agency he was in charge of [the ATF]. Ah-ah-ah Congress… Executive Privilege…)

The criminal path is now closed and the civil route through the courts would not be resolved anytime soon.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., is leading the effort to get the material related to Operation Fast and Furious.

“This is pure politics,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

(Note that the word politics is defined by Bouvier’s Law Dictionary as –

POLITICAL – Pertaining to policy, or the administration of the government. Political rights are those which may be exercised in the formation or administration of the government they are distinguished from civil, rights, which are the rights which a man enjoys, as regards other individuals, and not in relation to the government. A political corporation is one which has principally for its object the administration of the government, or to which the powers of government, or a part of such powers, have been delegated. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 182, 197, 198. –

(In other words, Congress has no political rights when it comes to the DOJ. The DOJ is politically independant of Congress.)

Now let’s think about this for a moment… Eric Holder is the appointed head of the Executive Justice Department. Obama is the man who appointed him to that Executive office (with an honorable mention to the senate [THE CONGRESS] who approved him). The prosecuting attorney would also be from that Executive office. The Federal court in which that case would be heard would also be part of the Executive DOJ. The defending attorney representing the DOJ head Attorney General in that case would also be assigned by the Executive Department of Justice.

So how could the people possibly have justice against the President’s appointment or against the President himself, when the entire Justice System is completely under the President’s Executive control? How indeed… the only way would be to assemble a people’s grand jury so that the people could decide! But the executive branch that committed the crime (through the protection of the privilege and immunity of the president himself), as well as the ABA, has the power to halt a people’s jury from ever assembling in the Supreme Court to hear the case in the first place!!!

Yeah… it’s a free country! (Que penchant, disturbing laugh again.)

So, what else would you expect from a Supreme Court that was appointed by the president (whose name is publicly attached and associated to the health care bill) – a bill that congress (the house and senate – mostly BAR attorneys) passed through legislation?

Did you actually think that the presidential appointed “Justices” would decide that this bill was “unconstitutional”?

Do you still actually think that these “Branches” of government are in competition with one another?

Corporately and profitably speaking, the “Affordable Health Care For America Act” (A.K.A Obama-care) is very constitutional!!! After all, it contractually forces Americans to be “constitutors” to the insurance companies without forcing the insurance companies to cover all medical conditions… which in the totality of it all are majorly held companies of government through its pension fund and other investment funds. What more could a corporation want out of its constitution as a corporate charter?

–=–

A Shout Out To The Ladies

–=–

There are some very important legal words that we must define here before we can go on, and trust me when I say they definitely apply to you, the reader…

PEOPLE – A state; as, the people of the state of New York;a nation in its collective and politicalcapacity. 4 T. R. 783. See 6 Pet. S. C. Rep. 467. 2. The word people occurs in a policy of insurance. The insurer insures against “detainments of all kings, princes and people.” He is not by this understood to insure against any promiscuous or lawless rabble which may be guilty of attacking or detaining a ship. 2 Marsh. Ins. 508. – Vide Body litic; Nation. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

STATE – government. This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into one body politic; (q. v.) and the state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions. 1 Pet. Cond. Rep. 37 to 39; 3 Dall. 93; 2 Dall. 425; 2 Wilson’s Lect. 120; Dane’s Appx. §50, p. 63 1 Story, Const. §361. In a more limited sense, the word `state’ expresses merely the positive or actual organization of the legislative, or judicial powers; thus the actual government of the state is designated by the name of the state; hence the expression, the state has passed such a law, or prohibited such an act. State also means the section of territory occupied by a state, as the state of Pennsylvania.

(Author’s note: This means that The “State” of Pennsylvania or any other one of the 50 states in the union is the incorporated body politic governing a territory of (owned by) the United States. The United States is the D.C. corporation that owns the territory for which the individual 50 states (governments) are incorporated within- they are each United States sub-corporations, allowed to exist by the United States corporation. The land is still the claimed constitutional territory of the United States, despite the 50 State corporations residing on it.)

It is important to note that the use in modern day language of this word people is not the legal term that was used for the constitution. Remember, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary was cherished for being the definitive legal dictionary in regards to the language at the signing of and within the constitution. The only “people” who actually signed the constitution were the founding fathers, and they signed merely as legal witnesses for the individual “States”. You are only people (of the State, the Nation) if you as an individual man consent to it through contract with the State (United States) as a person.

Also of equal importance… if you are a woman reading this text you have probably noticed that I keep using the word man and never the word woman. As this is in fact a presentation on legal terminology, I wish to let you know that this has been a purposeful effort on my part. Why? Because you, as a woman, are actually a man – at least in the law society – unless you legally claim to be a woman.

Let’s see what it means to claim yourself to be a registered woman citizen.

First, we must define the root of that word, which is “man”, again from Bouvier’s Law, 1856:

MAN – A human being. This definition includes not only the adult male sex of the human species, but women and children; examples: “of offenses against man, some are more immediately against the king, other’s more immediately against the subject.” Hawk. P. C. book 1, c. 2, s. 1. Offenses against the life of man come under the general name of homicide, which in our law signifies the killing of a man by a man.” Id. book 1, c. 8, s. 2. – 2. In a more confined sense, man means a person of the male sex; and sometimes it signifies a male of the human species above the age of puberty. Vide Rape. It was considered in the civil or Roman law, that although man and person are synonymous in grammar, they had a different acceptation in law; all persons were men, but all men, for example, slaves, were not persons, but things. Vide Barr. on the Stat. 216, note.

MANKIND.Persons of the male sex; but in a more general sense, it includes persons of both sexes; for example, the statute of 25 Hen. VIII., c. 6, makes it felony to commit, sodomy with mankind or beast. Females as well as males are included under the term mankind. Fortesc. 91; Bac. Ab. Sodomy. See Gender.

WOMEN –persons. In its most enlarged sense, this word signifies all the females of the human species; but in a more restricted sense, it means all such females who have arrived at the age of puberty. Mulieris appellatione etiam virgo viri potens continetur. Dig. 50, 16, 13. – 2. Women are either single or married. 1. Single or unmarried women have all the civil rights of men; they may therefore enter into contracts or engagements; sue and be sued; be trustees or guardians, they may be witnesses, and may for that purpose attest all papers; but they are generally, not possessed of any political power; hence they cannot be elected representatives of the people, nor be appointed to the offices of judge, attorney at law, sheriff, constable, or any other office, unless expressly authorized by law; instances occur of their being appointed post-mistresses nor can they vote at any election. Wooddes. Lect. 31; 4 Inst. 5; but see Callis, Sew. 252; 2 Inst 34; 4 Inst. 311, marg. – 3. The existence of a married woman being merged, by a fiction of law, in the being of her husband, she is rendered incapable, during the coverture, of entering into any contract, or of suing or being sued, except she be joined with her husband; and she labors under all the incapacities above mentioned, to which single women are subject. Vide Abortion; Contract; Divorce; Feminine; Foetus; Gender; Incapacity; Man; Marriage; Masculine; Mother; Necessaries; Parties to Actions Parties to Contracts; Pregnancy; Wife.

Note that man is a human being, and woman is a person.

So you see, being a female of the species human is not only wonderful but necessary for life itself to continue… But being a wo-man is not. Your rights as a woman (person) are civil, meaning they are prescribed and bestowed upon you as a citizen, or person. Ironically, with the advent of woman’s “rights”, this distinction in legal sexual identification erases a mans natural rights and turns her into a woman – which by default is and always has been beneath a male human man unless the civil legal code states otherwise – which it does. This may be difficult to understand, and even more difficult to utilize, but a woman can only be free from the United States as chattel by publicly shedding herself of her womanhood (her corporate person-hood). You, as a female, do not have the right to vote. But by accepting person-hood, you are granted the privilege to vote as a “civil right“, placing you on equal footing through legislation as a male.

Perhaps this will help in your cognition…

A horse can be male or female, and is still called a horse. It is not called a wo-horse. The same goes for pigs, sheep, dogs, cats, lizards, spiders, and every living sentient being on earth. Only in the corrupt minds of men could such a legal distinction of such binding and degrading class structure be brought to bear upon one half of the species of man! (And by the minds of man/men I mean the ladies too! Just look at that woman in Congress Nancy Pelosi! Yuck!!!)

–=–

The Incivility Of Civil Rights

–=–

While we are on the subject of the legal term “civil”, let’s briefly touch on the horrific hoax of what are called “civil rights”.

Knowing that a “right” is always nothing more than a permitted-by-government legal privilege, such privileges as the right to vote are considered “civil rights“.

The claim of civil rights made without legal standing (outside of government and the civil courts) places civility into the natural realm of man. But in legal language, a civil right is a right that can be taken away. A civil liberty is a liberty that can be taken away. And a civil court is a court that can take civil rights and property away.

Of course, we must specifically define this word in its legal context:

CIVIL. This word has various significations. 1. It is used in contradistinction to barbarous or savage, to indicate a state of society reduced to order and regular government; thus we speak of civil life, civil society, civil government, and civil liberty. 2. It is sometimes used in contradistinction to criminal, to indicate the private rights and remedies of men, as members of the community, in contrast to those which are public and relate to the government; thus we speak of civil process and criminal process, civil jurisdiction and criminal jurisdiction.

CIVIL LAW. The municipal code of the Romans is so called. It is a rule of action, adopted by mankind in a state of society. It denotes also the municipal law of the land. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 11. See Law, civil.

CIVIL OBLIGATION – Civil law. One which binds in law, vinculum juris, and which may be enforced in a court of justice. Poth. Obl. 173, and 191. See Obligation.

Trust me when I say that the last thing that a man should wish upon him or her self is to have the government decide what is civil. A jury of peers, maybe. Civil rights, as used in the legal context within the jurisdiction of the United States for women, blacks (freedmen) and whites as equal persons, is the vehicle for which your natural or “private” rights as a man are transferred via citizen contract as a person into “public” legal (civil) rights dictated by government.

The perfect example of what civil rights did to natural rights is this beauty in the U.S. CODE, TITLE 42 – entitled: “THE PUBLIC WELFARE”

TITLE 42 > Chapter 21 > Subchapter 1 > § 1981

(a) Statement of equal rights

“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States(FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INCORPORATED) shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”

With citizenship and its forced privilege (right) of civil rights comes not the loss of freedom, for freedom is specifically defined as obeying the law… but instead, a civil right as defined under government code (public policy) takes away the choice of civility and creates a statutory mandate that binds one to mandated statutory civility. And the civil “right” to be punished, put in pain, incur penalties, be taxed, be required to obtain and pay for a license as permission to have freedom to do some thing or act, and to be exacted (extorted) from becomes what the government calls an “equal right“.

So congratulations on being a woman (person) or a black freedman citizen (person) of equal privilege to white citizens (persons), for you are equally enslaved as chattel as the rest of us!

Just what did you really think affirmative action was put into place for? To give you natural civil rights!

Ha, ha ha ha ha…

It made us all equally indebted and extorted, man.

–=–

What Are The Duties Of The Attorney General?

–=–

Now, I’d like to share with you what the government website of the Attorney General of Illinois has to say about this very question.

You can click on the following (.gov) link to verify that this information came from that source (emphasis mine):

“The effect of the establishment of the Office of Attorney General under the 1870 Constitution, not fully recognized for several decades, was the creation of an office with broad powers to represent and safeguard the interests of the People of this State. The Attorney General has been determined, in decisions of the supreme court, to have not just those duties and powers that might be specifically prescribed in statutory enactments, but to have all those duties that appertain to the Office of Attorney General as it was knownat common law. The phrase “prescribed by law” was rejected as a limitation on the Attorney General’s powers to those specified by statute. The supreme court stated in Fergus v. Russel (1915), 270 Ill. 304, discussed below, that “[t]he common law is as much a part of the law of this State as the statutes and is included in the meaning of this phrase.” (See, 5 ILCS 50/1.)

(Author’s note: Statutes are not law without the people’s consent. There is no law in the United States Inc, only statute, public policy, and CODE. Prescribed by law is not the same as prescribed by statute, and so this phrase needed editing. Law only happens outside of the United States’ jurisdiction.)

History continued…

In considering the powers of the Attorney General, the supreme court, in Fergus v. Russel, noted:

* * * Under our form of government all of the prerogatives which pertain to the crown in England under the common law are here vested in the people, and if the Attorney General is vested by the constitution with all the common law powers of that officer and it devolves upon him to perform all the common law duties which were imposed upon that officer, then he becomes the law officer of the people, as represented in the State government, and its only legal representative in the courts, unless by the constitution itself or by some constitutional statute he has been divested of some of these powers and duties.”

(Fergus, at 337.)

The court went on to state:

* * * By our Constitution we created this office by the common law designation of Attorney General and thus impressed it with all its common law powers and duties. As the Office of the Attorney General is the only office at common law [exercising legal functions] which is thus created by our Constitution, the Attorney General is the chief law officer of the State, and the only officer empowered to represent the people in any suit or proceeding in which the State is the real party in interest.”

(Fergus, at 342.)

The court noted that it is the Attorney General’s duty “to conduct the law business of the State, both in and out of the courts.” (Fergus, at 342.)

With these pronouncements, the court in Fergus clearly established the Office of Attorney General as one with expansive powers which the General Assembly lacked the power to diminish. While it has frequently been argued that much of the language in Fergus broadly describing the Attorney General’s role is obiter dicta, it is clear that Fergus stands for “the principle that the Attorney General is the sole officer who may conduct litigation in which the People of the State are the real party in interest.” People ex rel. Scott v. Briceland (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 485, 495. Under Fergus and its progeny, any attempt to authorize any other officer to conduct litigation in which the State is the real party in interest would be an impermissible interference with the Attorney General’s constitutional powers and an appropriation to another agency to be used directly for such purposes would be unconstitutional and void.

The powers generally understood to belong to the Attorney General at common law have been summarized as follows:

* * * 1st. To prosecute all actions, necessary for the protection and defense of the property and revenues of the crown.

2d. By information, to bring certain classes of persons accused of crimes and misdemeanors to trial.

[3rd.]By scire facias, to revoke and annul grants made by the crown improperly, or when forfeited by the grantee thereof.

4th.By information, to recover money or other chattels, or damages for wrongs committed on the land, or other possessions of the crown.

5th. By writ of quo warranto, to determine the right of him who claims or usurps any office, franchise or liberty, and to vacate the charter, or annul the existence of a corporation, for violations of its charter, or for omitting to exercise its corporate powers.

6th. By writ of mandamus, to compel the admission of an officer duly chosen to his office, and to compel his restoration when illegally ousted.

7th. By information in chancery, to enforce trusts, and to prevent public nuisances, and the abuse of trust powers.

8th. By proceedings in rem, to recover property to which the crown may be entitled, by forfeiture for treason, and property, for which there is no other legal owner, such as wrecks, treasure trove, &c. (3 Black. Com., 256-7, 260 to 266; id., 427 and 428; 4 id., 308, 312.)

9th. And in certain cases, by information in chancery, for the protection of the rights of lunatics, and others, who are under the protection of the crown. (Mitford’s Pl., 24-30, Adams’ Equity, 301-2.)

Please go to this link for this government site and copy or digitize it, before this little treasure gets taken down.

–=–

The “Crown” Defined

–=–

For the purposes of understanding what the word “crown” means in the above referenced U.S. court case by the Illinois Attorney, here are a few legal definitions that may help, dated from both modern and 1800’s period dictionary perspectives. See if you can put the puzzle pieces together via these legal definitions…

–=–

COURT – n. 3. A palace; the place of residence of a king or sovereign prince. 5. Persons who compose the retinue or council of a king or emperor. 9. The tabernacle had one court; the temple, three. –Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

ESQUIRE – n. [L. scutum, a shield; Gr. a hide, of which shields were anciently made.], a shield-bearer or armor-bearer, scutifer; an attendant on a knight. Hence in modern times, a title of dignity next in degree below a knight. In England, this title is given to the younger sons of noblemen, to officers of the king’s courts and of the household, to counselors at law, justices of the peace, while in commission, sheriffs, and other gentlemen. In the United States, the title is given to public officers of all degrees, from governors down to justices and attorneys. –Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

CROWN – n. 4. Imperial or regal power or dominion; sovereignty. There is a power behind the crown greater than the crown itself. Junius. 19. A coin stamped with the image of a crown; hence, a denomination of money; as, the English crown. — Crown land, land belonging to the crown, that is, to the sovereign. — Crown law, the law which governs criminal prosecutions. — Crown lawyer, one employed by the crown, as in criminal cases. v.t. 1. To cover, decorate, or invest with a crown; hence, to invest with royal dignity and power. –1913 Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary.

COLONY – n. 1. A company [i.e. legal corporation] or body of people transplanted from their mother country to a remote province or country to cultivate and inhabit it, and remaining subject to the jurisdiction of the parent state; as the British colonies in America or the Indies; the Spanish colonies in South America. –-Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

LAWFUL – In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. “Lawful” properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; “Legal”, a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a “legal” process however defective. –A Dictionary of Law 1893.

LEGAL – Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual (law). “Legal” looks more to the letter, and “Lawful” to the spirit, of the law. “Legal” is more appropriate for conformity to positiverules of law; “Lawful” for accord with ethical principle. “Legal” imports rather that the forms of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rulesprescribed have been obeyed; “Lawful” that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. “Legal” is the antithesis of “equitable”, and the equivalent of “constructive”.–2 Abbott’s Law Dict. 24; A Dictionary of Law (1893).

RULE – n. [L. regula, from rego, to govern, that is, to stretch, strain or make straight.] 1. Government; sway; empire; control; supreme command or authority. 6. In monasteries, corporations or societies, a law or regulation to be observed by the society and its particular members. –Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

RULE – n. 1 [C] a statement about what must or should be done, (syn.) a regulation.

ATTORN – v.i. [L. ad and torno.] In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassels or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate. –Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

ESTATE – n. [L. status, from sto, to stand. The roots stb, std and stg, have nearly the same signification, to set, to fix. It is probable that the L. sto is contracted from stad, as it forms steti.] 1. In a general sense, fixedness; a fixed condition; 5. Fortune; possessions; property in general. 6. The general business or interest of government; hence, a political body; a commonwealth; a republic. But in this sense, we now use State.

STATE – n. [L., to stand, to be fixed.] 1. Condition; the circumstances of a being or thing at any given time. These circumstances may be internal, constitutional or peculiar to the being, or they may have relation to other beings. 4. Estate; possession. [See Estate.]—Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

FREEDOM –Liberty; the right to do what is not forbidden by law. Freedom does not preclude the idea of subjection to law; indeed, it presupposes the existence of some legislative provision, the observance of which insures freedom to us, by securing the like observance from others. 2 Har. Cond. L. R. 208. —Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Revised Sixth Edition, 1856.

FREEMAN – One who is in the enjoyment of the right to do whatever he pleases, not forbidden by law. One in the possession of the civil rights(privilages) enjoyed by, the people generally. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 164. See 6 Watts, 556 –-Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Revised Sixth Edition, 1856.

–=–

An Oath To Uphold The Corporate Charter?

–=–

Each applicant to the Supreme Court must take the following oath as a BAR attorney or approved litigator:

Each applicant shall sign the following oath or affirmation:

I, ……………, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that as an attorney and as a counselor of this Court, I will conduct myself uprightly and according to law, and that I will support the Constitution of the United States.

Yes… that’s the Constitution of the United States (not the United States “of America”).

Note here that the Constitution of the United States is the Corporate Charter for the United States Corporation. This charter, as is the case with all corporations, is re-read into the public record every 20 years – and most people think the “government” is just being patriotic. Note that the word “public” has a very different meaning than what is commonly used in our everyday communicative language. In legalese, the clandestine language of the law society, Public refers to “public policy”. The government, from congress to the Supreme Court decides not on what the law shall be, but instead it sets “public policy”. This statutory law is 100% based on the presumed consent of the governed, and that presumption is all but granted the second we are born into subjugation of the United States. There is no true natural law left in America with regards to what we mistakenly call “government”. In its place, we have public policy. This is 100% contract law. All interactions with this U.S. corporation by men are in contract form as persons – from the signing of a license to drive or to marry to the filing of taxes to being placed in prison. Every single act by the people (persons) as “residents” of Washington D.C. (the City of Columbia) is done so voluntarily. When the people “resister” to vote, they are turning their backs on natural law and on the organic constitution and are instead contracting to the United States (the corporation 10 miles square) as 14th Amendment persons per the 15th Amendment of the private corporate charter that happens to be called a constitution. And in doing so, the people are accepting the contractual offer of government to be considered “persons”, giving up their God-given natural rights to vote in exchange for the privilege (contract) to vote in Washington D.C (where all people within the jurisdiction of the United States [D.C.] corporation “reside” as “residents” – as contracted corporate “persons”).

In fact, the first question on the voting form is, “Are you a United States citizen?”

RESIDENT – persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period. See 6 Hall’s Law Journ. 68; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 373; 20 John. 211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

–=–

Who Really Elects The President Of The United States?

–=–

Hilariously, our consent to this 15th Amendment and to voter registration means that 100 million “public voters” all cast their votes solely in the District of Columbia, not in the state they live – which in the electoral college, D.C. only represents 3 electoral votes out of 538.

17th Amendment:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.”

The Electoral College consists of these electors,who formally elect the President and Vice President of the United States(this is not the original united states of America, but the United States corporation). Since 1964, there have been 538 electors in each presidential election, as held in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution.

The Electoral College is an indirect election. This means that all registered Untied States “citizens” do not elect their president! Instead, the people elect congressmen, who along with their chosen political party, delegate the power of “elector” to others and thus the president (Chief Executive Officer ) is elected through the electoral college. This is how all major corporations work – the board of directors (congress) elect the CEO (president) of the corporation (United States).

So what happens to the millions upon millions of registered votes from the citizens (registered U.S. “persons”) of the United States?

It’s simple, really… The peoples votes are at best counted and the results may be similar to the 3 electoral college votes of the District of Columbia that are made by the electors (as public opinion) – the corporation that all voters are contractually “registered” to vote in and claim consensual residence in!

Through the electoral college, the constitutional “electors” of each state then vote for who the president and vice president of the corporation will be, each state having a different number of electoral votes based on population.

And the electoral college overrules the popular vote!!!

In other words, for all of the hoopla, pomp and circumstance, and billions and billions of dollars that surround the public vote for the presidential elections every four years, the whole thing is completely for show to fool the people into thinking they are electing the president! Because the popular (persons) vote doesn’t really count for anything…

The bible says that, “My people perish from a lack of knowledge.” –Hosea 4: 6 (KJV).

In the case of legal persons, this could not be a more true statement. Men perish and virtually cease to exist because of their lack of knowledge of legalese and because of their own contractual corporate person-hood.

The voters of each state and the District of Columbia, through the political party system, vote for electors to be their authorized constitutional participants (electors) in a presidential election without most voters even knowing this is happening. Electors are free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates according to their political party, and political parties (not the people) cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors within the party. Keep in mind that the Democratic and Republican parties, just like the BAR, are 100% private associations that do not represent the people in any way, though that is not what their media ads tell the people (voters) who support them.

What is the legal definition of “elector” from Bouvier’s law dictionary, 1856?

ELECTOR – government. One who has the right to make choice of public officers one, who has a right to vote. – 2. The qualifications of electors are generally the same as those required in the person to be elected; to this, however, there is one exception; a naturalized citizen may be an elector of president of the United States, although he could not constitutionally be elected to that office.

ELECTORS OF PRESIDENT. Persons elected by the people, whose sole duty is to elect a president and vice-president of the U. S. – 2. The Constitution provides, Am. art. 12, that “the electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for president and vice-president, one of whom at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as president, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as vice-president; and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as president, and of all persons voted for as vice-president, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit, sealed, to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the president of the senate; the president of the senate shall, in the presence of the senate and the house of representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted; the person having the greatest number of, votes for president, shall be the president, if such number be the majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no, person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers, not exceeding three, on the list of those voted for as president, the house of representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the president. But in choosing the president, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum, for this purpose, shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the house of representatives shall not choose a president whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the vice-president shall act as president, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the president. – 3. “The person having the greatest number of votes as vice-president shall be vice-president, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed and if no person have a majority, them from the two highest numbers on the list, the senate shall choose the vice-president; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president, shall be eligible to that of vice-president of the United States.” Vide 3 Story, Const. §1448 to 1470.

–End–

–=–

Who In The Hell Are The Actual “Electors” Of The President Of This United States?

–=–

I’ll tell you one thing, it ain’t the people!

What we have here in America is what is called “Legislative Democracy”. Authority is delegated by the people to their congressmen, and in turn they make all decisions for the people, and the people never actually vote on any legislation, and therefore never actually vote on the laws that bind them. If that’s not slavery by legislative democracy, I don’t know what is!

This privilege of the electoral college election of the president of the United States is delegated each year by your congressmen (538 house and senate members of each state, who each have one vote per the constitution) and by the political parties themselves – delegated to other citizens of their perspective states called “electors”.

The Twelfth Amendment provides for each “elector” to cast one vote for President and one separate vote for Vice President. It also specifies how a President and Vice President are elected. In practice the pres and vice-pres are always of the same party. But in reality, they are elected separately, and so the United States could technically have a mixed party ticket. But the public would get really confused at this, and so the electors will never vote in that way so as to retain the quite open secret of their elite college.

12th Amendment:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate (the vice president).

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President…

Nowhere here does it mention you, me, or any of the approximately 100 million “registered” voters in the United States. In short, the people do not in any way elect their president – though apparently most have been led to believe they do judging by the media circus that happens every four years costing billions of taxpayer and private campaign dollars. The presidency is really won by which ever political party lobbies the “electors” best, and by which party those electors represent and are members of. This is why someone like me will never be the president of the United States – unless, perhaps, the people actually wake up from their collective dream-state and finally realize that they do not have a choice, and finally revolt against the system that fools and re-enslaves them every four years. Silly persons…

Even more disturbing is to actually see a list of who these “electors” are:

So let’s take the 2008 election as an example; where the first black person got elected in a flood of false “hope and change”… Remember how proud the people were that they had elected the first black president? They felt like they had collectively done something together to change the system. They felt so wonderful that they had utilized their “civil rights” and created hope for America. (LOL!!!)

My personal favorite of these 538 “electors” of 2008 is my own Attorney General of Utah, Mr. Mark Shurtleff.

If you are unfamiliar with my own dealings with our corrupt Attorney General, please take a couple of moments to enjoy my previous confrontation with him at the March, 2010 Tea Party rally at the Utah State Capital in Salt Lake City:

Good times, and I didn’t even know he was an elector back then! Perhaps it’s time to find him again.

Oh, and sorry about the “music”…

When one looks at just a partial list of who gets appointed as electors by political parties, and when one considers the dates of when these people either attain office or get promoted (voted) into higher offices, one cannot help to start digging out the word conspiracy, dusting it off, and ditching the word theory altogether.

CONSPIRACY – criminal, law, torts. An agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or an act which may become by the combination injurious to others.

Remember, with no law, all acts are unlawful in America. And with the DOJ in place, no plans between two or more people will ever be brought to the light of “justice”.

Other “electors” from 2008, who were solely and directly responsible for the election of President Obama include:

Harriet Smith Windsor – Delaware Secretary of State (2001-2009; a Democrat currently serving as the Vice Chair of the Delaware Democratic Party. In 2008 Windsor was an elector for Barack Obama.

Edward E. “Ted” Kaufman Delaware United States Senator from 2009 to 2010. Since 2010, he has chaired the Congressional Oversight Panel. He is a member of the Democratic Party who was appointed to the Senate to fill the term of long-time Senator Joe Biden, who resigned to become Vice President of the United States in January 2009. Prior to becoming a U.S. Senator,Kaufman had been an adviser to Biden for much of his political career.

(Author’s note: as stated above, the guy who gets APPOINTED to the U.S. Senate was one of 538 persons that was an elector and he voted for Biden. Anyone smell a plan between two or more people here? No? I sure smell something…)

Wellington E. Webb was the first African American Mayor of Denver (1991-2003), after his stints as Denver City Auditor (1987-1991), and as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (1981-1987).

Muriel Bowser – Washington D.C. Democrat politician and a member of the Council of the District of Columbia representing Ward 4.

Vincent C. Gray – Mayor of the District of Columbia as of January, 2011, and was Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, as Council member for Ward 7. In the 1990s he also served as director of the DC Department of Human Services.

Anthony C. Hill Florida State Senator in the Democratic party (2002-2011). He currently serves as a legislative liaison for Jacksonville mayor, Alvin Brown.

Rick Minor – Florida policy adviser who is now running for the Florida House of Representatives as a member of the Democratic Party. Previously, he was the Chairman of the Leon County Democratic Party from 2005 to 2009.

Jared E. Moskowitz (born December 18, 1980) Elected to the City Commission of Parkland, Florida in March 2006 at age 25 while a second-year law student.

Francisco (Frank) J. Sánchez – A Florida BAR attorney currently serving as Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade at the Department of Commerce. From 1999 to 2000, he served as a Special Assistant to the President. From 2000 to 2001, he served as Assistant Transportation Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. In 2001, he founded Cambridge Negotiation Strategies.

Karen L. Thurman Former Democratic U.S. Representative from Florida (1999-2003). In 2005 Thurman was elected Chairman of the Florida Democratic Party, resigning after the election in November 2010.

Carmen Tores – played a character named Margarita Cordova in an American soap opera called “Sunset Beach”. (Author’s note: WTF?)

Frederica Wilson – U.S. Representative for Florida’s 17th congressional district (2011-current). Previously, she was in the Florida State Senate (2003-2010).

James Randolph “Randy” Evans – BAR lawyer and Republican from Georgia, who ironically specializes in government ethics. Evans is a law partner at McKenna Long & Aldridge. He has served as a longtime advisor to the Republican Party of Georgia.

Deborah L. “Debbie” Halvorson – Former U.S. Representative for Illinois’ 11th congressional district (2009-2011). She is a member of the Democratic Party, and formally a state senator.

James Phillip Hoffa – James is the only son of the infamous Jimmy Hoffa. James is a BAR attorney and labor leader and the General President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Hoffa was first elected during December 1998 and took office on March 19, 1999. He was subsequently re-elected in 2001, 2006 and 2011 to five-year terms. (Author’s note: Again, the irony here is thick enough to cut with a butter-knife.)

Ronald A. Gettelfinger – President of the United Auto Workers union from 2002 to 2010. (Author’s note: Big surprise!)

Andrew Mark Cuomo – 56th and current Governor of New York, having assumed office on January 1, 2011. A member of the Democratic Party , he was also the 64th New York State Attorney General (2007-2010), and was the 11th United States Federal Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (1997-2001). Andrew is the son of Mario Cuomo, the 52nd Governor of New York (1983–1994).

Thomas P. DiNapoli – 54th Comptroller of the state of New York (also in charge of the state pension system). He is a former state assemblyman in New York, who was appointed as New York State Comptroller on February 7, 2007. Previous State Assemblyman (1987-2007).

Sheldon “Shelly” Silver – BAR lawyer and Democratic politician from New York. He has held the office of Speaker of the New York State Assembly since 1994.

Helen Dianne Foster Currently represents District 16 in the New York City Council. Elected in 2001, she is the current co-chair of the Black, Latino, and Asian Caucus. She currently serves as chairwoman of the Parks & Recreation Committee, and serves as a member of the Aging, Education, Health, Lower Manhattan Redevelopment, and Public Safety Committees. Prior to this she was a BAR Assistant District Attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, subsequent to which she became an Assistant Vice-President for legal affairs at St. Barnabas Hospital.

William Colridge Thompson, Jr. – Known as Bill or Billy, he was the 42nd Comptroller of New York City (2002-2009). He is the son of William C. Thompson, Sr., formerly a prominent Brooklyn Democratic Party leader, City Councilman, State Senator and BAR’d judge on New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division.

David Alexander Paterson – default 55th Governor of New York (2008 to 2010) as lieutenant governor (2007-2008) – heralded in after Eliot Spitzer resigned in the wake of a prostitution scandal. Paterson was sworn in as governor of New York on March 17, 2008. During his tenure he was the first governor of New York of non-European American heritage and also the second legally blind governor of any U.S. state.

Janice McKenzie Cole – BAR attorney who served as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina (1994–2001) under President Bill Clinton.

Theodore “Ted” Strickland – 68th Democratic Governor of Ohio (2007-2011). Ted previously served in the United States House of Representatives, representing Ohio’s 6th congressional district (1993-1995). Strickland currently serves as a member of the Governors’ Council at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Bunny Chambers – Has Served As Oklahoma’s Republican National Committeewoman Since 1996. She currently serves on the Executive Committee of the Republican State Committee of Oklahoma. She has also held numerous positions on the grassroots level in her precinct and House District. Chambers has been a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 1988, 1996, 2000 and 2004.

Lynne Abraham – BAR attorney who served as the District Attorney of the City of Philadelphia from May 1991 to January 2010.

Thomas M. McMahon – Mayor of Reading, Pennsylvania from January 5, 2004 to January 2, 2012.

Michael Anthony Nutter – Current Mayor of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (since 2007). He is the third African-American mayor of Philadelphia, the largest city in the United States with an African-American mayor. He was re-elected on November 8, 2011. Nutter is a former councilman of the city’s 4th Council District, and has served as the 52nd Ward Democratic Leader since 1990.

Franco Harris – Former Professional football player. He played his NFL career with the Pittsburgh Steelers and Seattle Seahawks. Harris’ made comments in support of Joe Paterno, his coach while at Penn State, during the Penn State sex abuse scandal. Franco is a paid representative for the Harrah’s/Forest City Enterprises casino plan for downtown Pittsburgh. This association has earned him the nickname, “Franco Harrah’s”. (Author’s note: Again… WTF???)

Jack E. Wagner – Current auditor general of Pennsylvania (since 2005), and former state senator (1994-2005). He is a member of the Democratic Party.

Dennis M. Daugaard – 32nd Governor of South Dakota (since January 2011). BAR attorney. As a lieutenant governor under the South Dakota Constitution, Daugaard served as the President of the South Dakota Senate.

Marion Michael “Mike” Rounds– 31st Governor of South Dakota (2003-2011). Rounds currently serves as a member of the Governors’ Council at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Rounds served as the 2008 Chair of the Midwestern Governors Association (a private association). In its April 2010 report, ethics watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Rounds one of 11 “worst governors” in the United States because of various ethics issues throughout Rounds’ term as governor. Rounds is a partner in Fischer Rounds & Associates, an insurance and real estate firm. He placed his ownership interest into a blind trust upon being elected governor.

James Edward “Jim” Doyle – 44th Democrat Governor of Wisconsin (2003-2011). He is currently a BAR attorney ‘of counsel’ at the law firm of Foley & Lardner. 41st Attorney General of Wisconsin (1991-2003), as well as the Dane County District Attorney (1977-1982). In September 2010, Doyle was one of seven governors to receive a grade of F in the fiscal-policy report card of the Cato Institute.

The 23rd Amendment specifies how many “electors” the District of Columbia is entitled to have.

23rd Amendment:

Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Government has just told you that Washington D.C. is definitely not a State. In actuality, it is “THE STATE” when using that word as the ultimate power of the corporate government via contract with persons and according to legal definitions. Section 2 is also very important, as this addition or “clause” about congress having “power to enforce and legislate” is a built in loophole that gives Congress the power to create any legislation – in other words, to do anything it wants. This clause is also found in the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment Amendments, as well as in the wording of the 16th amendment with regards to income tax. Interestingly, the Congress has delegated that authority created by the 16th Amendment over to the Executive Department via the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which means that Congress isn’t really the branch collecting income tax as is stated in Amendment 16. But then, CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO ENFORCE THE INCOME TAX BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION!!! It is very convenient to write the rules that bind you, and then write the rule that lets you write the over-ruling rule to bypass the first rule, effectively rewriting what you have already written. Sound confusing? It’s supposed to!

–=–

Now, remember that I asked you to remember something… what was it…? Oh, yes!

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – …5. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law. 6. The states, individually, retain all the powers which they possessed at the formation of the constitution, and which have not been given to congress. (q. v.)

Now we can see how important this section is in each of these Amendments.

Because the wording of the original (organic) constitution of the united states of America was not changed with the implementation of the corporate charter that amended the original constitution away, Congress left these little clauses in the reconstruction Amendments and future amendments so as to nullify and make void the power of the individual State’s rights. By stating here that “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”, this and the other amendments with this type of clause are not organic, as these amendment’s intent and meaning can at any time be altered or changed; not by another amendment, but by the day to day legislation within the halls of Congress. In other words, amendments to the constitution with this clause are not organic, as they can and are over-ruled by bills of congress, any time it is convenient.

This clause also does something very, very important… It nullifies the protections of the 10th Amendment!

The 10th Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the Statesrespectively, or to the people.

Oops! The 14th Amendment, states that:

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

For all of you Tenth Amendment advocates out there, you should really pay attention here. By voluntarily consenting to the 14th Amendment and registering as a 14th Amendment person (citizen), you have given up your 10th Amendment protection. You have taken your residence out of the State you live in and contractually become a resident of Washington D.C. And that means that you also contractually agree to the rules and legal codes of the United States! Whereas before the 10th Amendment gave the individual States rights, Section 5 of the 14th Amendments left no one with 10th Amendment State’s rights – because you no longer have primary residence in the your state!

Let’s go back to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (accepted by Congress as the official law dictionary for the Constitution and the Supreme Court) to get the definition of resident again:

RESIDENT –persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish hisdomicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period. See 6 Hall’s Law Journ. 68; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 373; 20 John. 211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377.

RESIDENCE. The place of one’s domicil. (q. v.) There is a difference between a man’s residence and his domicil. He may have his domicil in Philadelphia, and still he may have a residence in New York; for although a man can have but one domicil, he may have several residences. A residence is generally tran-sient in its nature, it becomes a domicil when it is taken up animo manendi. Roberts; Ecc. R. 75. – 2. Residence is prima facie evidence of national character, but this may at all times be explained. When it is for a special purpose and transient in its nature, it does not destroy the national character. – 3. In some cases the law requires that the residence of an officer shall be in the district in which he is required to exercise his functions. (This is the case with Congress). Fixing his residence elsewhere without an intention of returning, would violate such law. Vide the cases cited under the article Domicil; Place of residence.

DOMICIL – 5. – §2. There are two classes of persons who acquire domicil by operation of law. 1st. Those who are under the control of another, and to whom the law gives the domicil of another. Among these are, 1. The wife. 2. The minor. 3. The lunatic, &c. 2d.Those on whom the state affixes a domicil… A party may have two domicils, the one actual, the other legal…

–=–

To Vote Or Not To Vote? That Really Is The Question.

–=–

Now, I used to tell people not to vote – that voting gave legitimacy to the very corporate charter of the United States, and therefore you get exactly what you consent to. But now, as I ponder the consequences of both voting and not voting, I realize that in the end it will make absolutely no difference whatsoever whether you or I vote or don’t vote for the office of president this year. Even if 100% of the eligible people voted legally (via registration) in the presidential primary, the people would only have at best a less than 1% minority say in who will be president with their 3 electoral votes. (I’m literally laughing out loud right now as I’m pulling my hair out in large strands, but I didn’t want to just say LOL because it’s such a sinister and crazy kind of laugh…)

In fact, as I’m writing this, I’m thinking of how much time and effort was put into the election process for the private association election for the Republican Party representative (not a representative of the people, but of the party). The well-intentioned folks who are so desperately trying to prop up Ron Paul as the Republican candidate must not understand how presidential elections work! And for that matter, Ron Paul isn’t telling people about this either as his campaign collects 10’s of millions from people that will have absolutely no say in whether or not he will become president. Hmmm…

Don’t we know that Ron Paul must win the vote of the 538 electors, not the people? Don’t we understand that the people do not elect the president? Don’t we know that the whole presidential media campaign is a hoax, and that they are wasting all of our time and energy on a very profitable practical joke? And every four years we go through this complete act of futility with the “patriot candidate” only to be defeated by our own ignorance of the electoral college. Do we not understand that the Republican and Democratic “parties” are 100% private associations that have nothing to do with the people or our interests? Do we think that our delegate votes will make any difference in whom that private association props up as the representative of their private association?

What gives, America? Are we really such fools that we can be manipulated into believing that our votes make any difference whatsoever in the election of our CEO/president every four years? (Uh-oh… more nutty LOL coming on…)

Do you get it yet? This means that when the election of 2000 between private association members Bush and Gore was decided by the electoral college against the popular vote, the 538 elected house and senate members who make up what we call Congress (the board of directors of U.S. Inc.) and the votes they delegate to the private association political parties who elect the “electors” actually overruled the millions of people in the election of the President of the United States. 100 million “registered” citizen voters were outvoted by 538 voting “representatives” through “electors”. I mean, Hoffa… really?

And the people call this the right to vote?

In the end, there is only one solution to our collective problem: DO NOT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONSENT, AND DEFINITELY DO NOT REGISTER TO VOTE!!!

The tie that binds us all is in fact our contractual citizenship with this foreign corporation in the City of Columbia. The severing of that contract via the severing of our citizenship is literally the only solution. Their rules and laws (statutory public opinion) only apply to 14th Amendment citizens of the United States.

Why?

Because that contract and only that contract is what gives the United States authority and jurisdiction over you as a person. It cannot control you as a living, breathing man, only as a corporate-person-chattel-thing. Citizenship, once again, changes you from an incorporeal free man to an incorporated corporeal body (chattel) – a thing that can be bought and sold and killed; that can be incarcerated with “due process”; and that can be absolutely controlled through contractual obligation (public law). The only way for the United States corporation, whose legal boundaries are those within the ten miles square of Washington D.C – outside of the 50 states united (the union) – the only way that IT can control, imprison, and buy and sell you and your property as a comodity (chattel) to back its Federal Reserve notes is if you never sever the ties that contractually bind you voluntarily to these privileges of servitude that it calls “rights”.

Remember, a right (freedom) is defined as: the privilege to do whatever you want, as long as you follow their laws. This is why 1,000’s of new laws are created every year within the jurisdiction of the United States – to ensure that you will always be breaking one of their civil laws so that they can exercise control over your person. The only way that the United States (federal government) can touch you is if you take residence within that fictional 10 miles square boundary as a U.S. citizen, and subject yourself to the public opinion it creates, that it calls “law”. Like any other corporation, you are only subject to the rules and punishments of that corporation if you are a contractual employee (citizen) of that corporation. It’s time to quit your job as an indentured servant/employee to the United States, and to take back the personal responsibility for ALL of your own actions – the only thing that will ever make you a free man.

Can you live without the privileges of corporate State benefits?

Perhaps a better question is: Will the corporation allow you to live when those benefits require you to die from the benefit and privilege of those new Obama-care death panels and old-age public opinions? After all… it will be your right to die at the hands of the public opinion!

–=–

A Final Note To Self-Proclaimed “Patriots”

–=–

If you label yourself as a “conservative”, that means that legally you want to conserve the current system. Please stop calling yourself that. This word was foisted upon you by the media as a practical joke. They even have you badmouthing the word “liberal” – which just happens to be what the “Founding Fathers” were labeled as back when men were still men and actually used their guns instead of just crying over their regulation and confiscation. You are being laughed at every time you use the word “liberal” to mean the exact opposite of its original intent. And as for the word “Patriot”, those were the men of old who actually fought for life, liberty, and property… you know, those things that you don’t have or own anymore by law of contract.

And as for your “patriotic” incantation of “The Pledge of Allegiance to the United States”…

For your information, this pledge did not exist during our Founding Father’s lifetimes. This becomes obvious when simply reading the Pledge out loud. It states:

“…one nation, indivisible…”

But according to the original constitution, the states are absolutely not indivisible, but very much the opposite. In fact, when ratifying the U.S. Constitution, States like Virginia specifically declared the right to secede from the Union should they feel it necessary just as an extra precaution to make sure that this State-right was clearly understood. The “Pledge” was written over a century after America’s founding in 1892 by a socialist named Francis Bellamy, whose original text was:

“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Just imagining my years as a youth in a group of 30 other youths making this pledge every day in public (government) school sends chills down my spine.

Now, I mean no disrespect here… My process of awakening has seen me tread through these same misnomers as everybody else. Only when one has experience in being a useful idiot like I have, can one then criticize others for same and show them a different path. And my path will no doubt diverge with the more knowledge that gets thrown in my way by somebody else who will criticize me.

I know that people who have reached the end here are looking for solutions. And I’m here to tell you that it is my personal opinion that persons, while they may have remedies, they will never have natural rights. Killing the STRAWMAN person and becoming a man again is the way and the light. But I must at the end here tell you that this essay should in no way be misconstrued as legal advice. I’d be quite personally offended if one of you accused me of practicing law. Only BAR attorneys do that, and I will never take on that sleazy foreign TITLE against the original 13th amendment.

I do not promote excommunication, as this is a legal venture. But the U.S. CODE does enumerate this process if you care to find it. I’d be happy to give personal references of people that might be able to help you, free men that are not citizens or persons, who’ve walked the walk and are now talking the talk. Contact me personally for this.

Mine is only to deconstruct and inform…

Happy July 4th to you. While you are out celebrating your non-independence, remember that July 4th was the day that Abe Lincoln declared martial law and military rule on the States that became, for a short time, independent from the United States Corporation, by convening the first illegal unconstitutional Congress of the new military law United States.

In my last article, I revealed that the Social Security System has been implemented in over 130 countries, that it is run by the United Nations and World Bank, and that it was created by the League of Nations 8 years before it was implemented in the United States. I then referred to this system and the Social Security number as the precursor to the Number of the Mark of the Beast.

Surprised by the response, I was truly disappointed at the comments left by readers. I found the rigidness of their religious dogma disturbing to say the least, literally bypassing the facts presented in lieu of correcting biblical citations and interpretations. And thus, I started thinking about how religion often takes people away from not only knowledge itself – but from God Himself; how the legal system takes the simplicity out of God’s law to do no harm; how corporations like pharmaceuticals take God’s natural healing out of medicine; and – depending on which of the over 1,000 one true religions they are a member of – how similar the joining of a religion is to the joining of a political party. And so I came up with the following list…

≈

Religion and Political Parties
What’s the Difference?

≈

Both start out with a corporate charter of beliefs by the leaders of that religion or political party.

These charters and beliefs are claimed by both entities to be divinely inspired.

Both change these charters and beliefs as times change, as technology improves, as law requires it, and as opposing knowledge and books become more accessible to the public at large.

Both are registered with the State via their Articles of Incorporation.

Both write and re-write history; and then edit and interpret their own writings.

They are both a form of control, both in political and moral correctness.

Members of both fear excommunication and public ridicule for questioning or acting against these chartered beliefs.

Political parties make the laws of the land and command consent, while religions teach that members must follow the “law of the land” as God commands.

Both give power to otherwise powerless men, who dress in robes and judge all people.

Political parties call law the Bible. Religions call the Bible the law.

Both must swear upon and to the bible (God) before giving testimony.

Both project a public persona that each is separate from the other…

Yet both are hopelessly intertwined.

You must be registered to both to be a member…

If you are not registered to both, your voice doesn’t count and your vote is not counted.

You are allowed to change political parties or religions at any time – as long as you are in one of them and aren’t thinking for yourself.

Both claim to be transparent and honest, doing their deeds in the light…

Yet both are well known to hide some of their deeds in the dark; without disclosure, and even against the very ethics they set for themselves.

Both claim to be non-profit…

And both avoid taxes on their for-profit ventures.

One allows atonement of sin through faith, followed by probationary good behavior…

The other allows atonement of sin through prison (or execution), followed by probationary good behavior…

And both offer these atoning people free bibles and religious last rights.

Both include many minority races and creeds…

And both focus those cultural differences into one divinely inspired political focus – to the detriment of any minorities who won’t consent or believe.

Both are non-governmental corporations that heavily influence government and politics.

Both have a list of ten things for which many of their beliefs are influenced in a major way…

Both preach these rights, ethics, morals, and family values virtually non-stop…

Both continuously break their promises to uphold these or live by example.

Both have been caught many times over in pedophilia related activities…

Both are very protective of this fact and the people involved in these activities…

Both have public relations officers to handle the public’s outrage at these actions so as to ensure the continuity of the corporation…

And both are protected from these crimes and from any major public scrutiny or punishment by the court system (BAR) and in the mainstream media (Public Opinion).

Both are the subjects of countless jokes made in poor taste.

Both rely on the ignorance of their members with regards to their business related and political activities…

And both despise watch-dog groups.

Both accept and rely on donations.

Both have leaders that wear expensive suits and receive very good pensions.

Both promise hope and change to the poor and working class, but never quite deliver.

Both offer a welfare system that’s never quite enough to really make a difference in society… other than to maintain the poverty level.

“In God We Trust” is the credo of both – after all, it says so on the thing they both worship the most.

Both have national and international rules and codes…

Both have members who do not question these rules or their leaders for fear of public ostracizing and ridicule.

Both have a healthy fear of some of the other well-connected-to-each-other members.

Both adhere to strict political correctness in public…

Yet both talk badly about other members behind their backs, and sometimes even in public forums or elections.

Both affect the lives of every person in the world… whether those people are members or not.

Both claim that they know what is best for We, the People.

Both declare that they are the one true and only way to salvation…

Both promise this eventual salvation from tyranny and evil – if only their members will have faith in them and wait patiently, for long enough…

Of course, both have been making this promise for many, many, many generations.

Both blame every other political party or religion for all of the problems in the world.

Both influence and help to define and legislate the legal definition of marriage…

Both cooperate and promote marriage as a legally binding contract where the State is the third party and legal owner of the fruits (children) of that marriage…

And both veil this legal contract in God’s will and blessing; providing marriage “ceremonies” and “services”.

Both claim that the constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, despite the opposite opinions of the personal writings of many of the founding fathers (prophets) that signed it.

Sadly, both believe and falsely preach that the right to congregate in public and worship comes from the constitution and “Bill Of Rights” instead of from God Himself.

Both are effusively and irrevocably supportive of the illegal “State” of Israel.

Both define Jews as the chosen people.

Both are more afraid of AIPAC and the ADL than of the devil himself.

Both are heavily influenced by the United Nations.

The CIA and other government agencies have infiltrated both.

Government regulates both.

And yet both pay little or no taxes to government.

—≈—

And after all of this… do you still wonder who came up with the
rule that you shouldn’t discuss religion or politics in mixed company?

In a recent conversation, I was enlightened on a subject that I think will clear up a few things in your quest of comprehension as to why our “representative” congressmen, presidents, governors, and other elected officers of the UNITED STATES (a federal corporation in the District of Columbia) don’t seem to be representing the interests of the people of the states for which they represent. This is very enlightening…

The simple answer to this question is this:

At some point in history, the original intended constitutional description of an elected politician went from being a “delegate” of the people to being a “Representative” of the people.

What is a delegate?

A delegate is a person chosen by the people or an other entity to represent the will of the people or that entity. That person (one of the people) is generally referred to as a “statesman” because his or her interest was only in that of the state or area (now called a district) for which he was an elected delegate. When in a national setting, such as in a congressional session with other delegates from other areas, this chosen representative of the people was there on behalf of the people and interests of those people in his district or state (statesman), and nothing else. National issues, therefore, would not trump local ones. But the most important difference between a delegate and a representative is this: a delegate was required to bring any legislation created in that lawmaking session either locally or nationally back to his area (district) for a vote of the people. In other words, he did not have the freedom to make decisions for the people, he merely was the chosen voice and scribe of the people as a representation of the people’s interests. The delegate and the laws he or she created had no power except that granted by the vote of the people. This made the laws passed by the delegate the actual law of the people. And this made it very difficult to pass a law that was tyrannical and not representative of the people.

What is a Representative?

A representative in today’s legal standing is a person chosen by the people or an other entity to represent the will of the people or entity, that much is the same. But today’s elected politicians are no longer delegates of the people, but rather the parent (parens patria) of the people will. Today’s politicians become TITLE 2 and TITLE 5 employees of the federal government, not delegates of the people. What does this mean? It means that as a representative, today’s elected delegate is conferred with the legal power, authority, and jurisdiction to make their own decisions (i.e. to vote for legal CODE without a vote of the people – with disregard of a people’s vote). A representative is not a statesman. And a representative does not make law, but rather creates legal CODE. This CODE is not the will of the people, as it is not voted upon by the people. A representative does not have the interests of his area (district) or state in mind when voting or creating legal CODE. Therefore, a representative is not acting in the people’s interest, for he is not delegating the peoples will. He or she is no longer a delegate of the people. And these legal CODES which are passed off as laws are very easy to pass, simply because the people have no say in their content or their passing.

-≈-

In short, comprehending the distinction between a delegate and a representative has been the final step for me to finally understand why the entirety of the legal US CODE has no lawful power, authority, or jurisdiction over me as one of the people without my personal consent, since all law is always based on the consent of the people.

If the people as a whole did not vote for a law, it is not the law.It is prima facie legal CODE requiring the consent of the people in the enforcement of that CODE. This includes state, county, local, and district legal CODE as well.

And remember that judges are “elected” as well, and are the adjudicators of legal CODE, not the law. And please understand that you also “elect” an attorney to “represent” you. BAR attorneys swear an oath to uphold that copyrighted legal CODE and to follow legal court procedure. An attorney is not a delegate, but a representative of yourself as a ward of the court not fit to represent yourself. All BAR attorneys and judges are on the same team, representing the legal CODE, not the people. And these BAR attorneys make up a majority of our elected officials in the senate, a large majority of the house, and of course our representative President, who has granted himself the authority to make his own law (legal CODE) through the use of Presidential Directives and Executive Orders, giving force to legal CODE’s without and above constitutional considerations.

Just because a politician makes a pretty speech about being a statesman and representing the will of the people doesn’t make this a reality. Most politicians want nothing more than the corporate clout and money that being a post-politician carries with it, not to mention a multi-million dollar tax-exempt expense account and a life-long taxpayer funded pension virtually unmatched in the private sector.

So the next time you decide to vote for your local, county, state, or federal representative, including the President of the UNITED STATES, remember that you are electing a representative and not a delegate. And remember that by voting for that person, you are granting that person your presumed consent to make decisions on your behalf, but certainly not in your best interests.

As I was searching for a glimpse into the unbelievable amounts of taxpayer money that it takes to fund the Federal Government and it’s Executive Departments by viewing its Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, I came across an interesting report called the “2010 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances” report.

This “Appropriations, outlays, and Balances” report included the expense accounts and left over ongoing fund balances that are appropriated to the Senate, the House of Congress, the Library of Congress, the Architect of the Capital, the Botanical Garden, the Capital Police, an on and on…

Did you know that each year the Treasury allots a certain amount of taxpayer money to go to the “Senate Hair Care Revolving Fund”?

Yep… The Federal Government has a fund that was created specifically for the hair care of its Senators! For fiscal year 2010, $33,387 was used to outlay this expense. The word outlay simply means “to spend, an amount expended, paid expenditures”.

There are only 100 Senators – 2 representing each of the 50 states.

This means that on each senator $333.87 in taxpayer money was spent to keep them looking sharp for the cameras, hairpieces and all!

But then, I guess that’s about what you’d expect from a fake Hollywood production like this.

But even more importantly, this “revolving fund” has a balance, which is appropriated solely for this Senatorial hair care. That fund balance, which is invested and gains each year, is $261,117.19. That represents a gain for this fund over fiscal year 2009 of about $36,000.

So we have a quarter of a million dollars designated for Senatorial hair care while many U.S. citizens live in destitute tent cities. It’s kinda funny… and kinda not.

The “Official Mail Costs, Senate” column states that the Federal Government appropriated $300,000 to this cost, adding to the existing balance already appropriated for Senate mailing services of $345,430.58. And after $115,546.71 of this money was actually used for mail, $161,082.59 was “withdrawn or used for other transactions”, the fund balance was left for fiscal year 2010 at $368,801.28 – a gain of a bit more than $22,000.

Why is so much money being designated for such trivial things? In a normal business setting, an employee would keep a tally of his expenses and turn in a expense record in order to be refunded that money by the corporation or be given a credit card to be paid off by the company every month. But in governments case, the money is appropriated into accounts or into an individual fund in dollar amounts much larger than are actually being spent.

Dare I say that this money could be used for other things?

But this is just part of the usual shell game, where governmental investment funds and bank accounts are removed from the general use taxpayer fund, which would go to pay or offset other taxes and needed taxpayer budgetary requirements, and put into these accounts and funds which by law must stay in those accounts or be transferred to other such legally appropriated funds. These types of funds happen throughout the entire spectrum of government, from local to district to county to state to Federal government.

But hey, and I hate to tell you this… but we haven’t even scratched the surface yet. These, believe it or not, are the small funds and accounts.

Now let’s look at one of the most outrageous expenses in the Senate (and the Congress).

The average Senator moans and groans about the low salary that he or she is paid, considering the job they are elected to. And the people generally and ignorantly agree. A Senator might mention how noble and altruistic they are for taking on the representation (LOL!) of the people of their state, and that the money that is paid to them for that venture is perhaps inconsequential compared with the honor of the service they are providing to the public (LOL!!!).

But in truth, if one wishes to know how much taxpayer money is earned by each Senator, one would have to go to the main source of that wealth. That source is the individual, tax-exempt expense accounts that each Senator (and congressman) receive.

You see, it is in the best interest of these legislators to keep their base salaries as low as possible. Why? Because those salaries are taxed. Their expense accounts are not!

Listed on this “2010 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances” report, under “Contingent Expenses, Senator’s Official Personnel And Office Expense Account, Senate”, we get a more accurate idea of what these crooks are being compensated with in order to be a part of this organized criminal activity working for United States Inc.

The report states that $422,000,000 was appropriated for use in the personal expense accounts of these 100 Senators.

Of that $422 million, $400,590,512.37 was used (outlay) for the personal and office expenses of these Senators.

That represents an average of about $4,005,900per Senator for “personal” and “office” expenses. Tax free. Spent on anything they want.

The account that holds this appropriated money gained about $13,600,000 over 2009 – leaving the ending account balance at $81,448,251.53.

Wow! I want to be a Senator! Hell… I’ll do it for no salary. Just lay that expense account on me!!!

Now you are probably really thinking… WTF?

You might be asking yourself, who in the name of all that is Holy would allow these 100 people to be appropriated with almost half a billion dollars for their personal expenses?

Ever heard of the Senate Appropriations Committee? That’s right. The Senate appropriates this money to their own expense accounts! Excuse me while I laugh out load again…

Now, you are probably thinking that this money is being used for “office” expenses much more than the actual “personal” expenses of these Senators, right?

Wrong…

We already know from looking at the above funds and accounts that these separate expense accounts weren’t used on haircuts, mail, working out, official pictures, restaurants, writing paper with the U.S. Seal embossed upon it, or spent in the gift shop! Actually, I’m sure much of it was spent on wining and dining corporate lobbyists, purchasing fancy suits, and personal grooming and care. But these expense accounts can be used for just about anything. Condos in Tahiti, vacations to Australia, second home purchases for “business purposes”, you name it. All tax exempt!

And as we can see from further examination of this appropriations report, all of the other Senatorial expenses are more than covered by the following other funds and accounts…

And last, but but certainly not least… we come to the actual salaries that are paid to have this set of 100 Senators.

“Salaries And Expenses, Office Of The Legislative Counsel Of The Senate, Senate” – We see that $7,154,000 was appropriated by the Senate itself for the Senator and staff Salaries. Of that amount, $6,394,041.59 was actually paid out (outlay) to the Senators and staff.

In order for each state to have two representatives, a total for the country of 100 Federal Employees for which we call “Senators”, and with the understanding that this in no way represents all monies spent on the Senate or the money that each state pays separately for each Senator (employees, office leases, supplies, legal council, etc.), the taxpayers paid at least the following for 2010:

$8,162,563.35 per Senator (in blue above)

$815,257,003.33 spent/outlay (in purple above)

Of course, the actual amount appropriated for these things is always much higher than the actual costs by thousands or millions of dollars. Sadly, this is purposeful. And, the account and fund balances that have accumulated over the years from over-appropriation (assigning too much money) to these funds for 2010 stand at at least a total of:

$297,905,741.83 excess account and fund balances (in red above).

All of this (plus much much more that is not listed here) just to have 100 men and women pretend to represent us. Remember, these are the people who don’t even read the bills presented to them by their corporate lobbyists before they sign them!

That treason costs the taxpayers of America over $815 million dollars, and well over $1 billion if all related expenses were taken into account.

All this to support 100 men in fancy suits. Imagine what the congress costs…?

All this while Americans lose their homes, their jobs, and their lives.

The answer to this question lies within the U.S. CODE that gives the Department of Domestic and Homeland Security its power in the first place…

But what gives this CODE its power?

In this article, I will be referencing the U.S. CODE of the government of the UNITED STATES – a private corporation. All CODES referenced are sourced below each reference.

If you still have any doubt that your government is a corporation, see the indisputable proof here: http://thecorporationnation.com/ or just keep reading… For those skeptics and doubting Thomas types, here is some instant gratification showing the ‘UNITED STATES’ non-representative corporate structure:

First, let’s look at the most important word in legal code. This powerful and lawful word is the only reason that the majority of our U.S. CODE has any power over us at all…

≈

CONSENT

≈

CONSENT:(v) (law) To acquiesce, agree, approve, assent, to voluntarily comply or yield, to give permission to some act or purpose. Voluntary Acquiescence to the proposal of another; the act or result of reaching an accord; a concurrence of minds; actual willingness that an act or an infringement of an interest shall occur. Consent is an act of reason and deliberation. A person who possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent decision demonstrates consent by performing an act recommended by another. Consent assumes a physical power to act and a reflective, determined, and unencumbered exertion of these powers. It is an act unaffected by Fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake when these factors are not the reason for the consent. Consent is implied in every agreement. (Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consent

ACQUIESCENCE:Conduct recognizing the existence of a transaction and intended to permit the transaction to be carried into effect; a tacit agreement; consent inferred from silence. Acquiescence relates to inaction during the performance of an act.

≈

If you understand the definition of consent, you have a legal weapon more powerful than any physical weapon you can ever carry. For consent is the very act that gives much of our legal statutes and codes their power… and in turn, our code enforcers (police) power over us.

Consent, for legal purposes, is a verbal or attitudinal contract. If a police officer (CORPORATE CODE enforcement officer) tells you that you must obey a code that is not statutory law, you must voluntarily give that police officer power (consent) by agreeing (voluntary acquiescence) to obey him; for your compliance with his request is strictly voluntary. You must volunteer to follow and obey non-statutory law (CODE).

But as we read above, consent can be “inferred from silence”, or even from “inaction”. Therefore, silence does not constitute a lack of consent. Your unwillingness to acquiesce must be made known in a verbal statement (non-contractual denial of authority). For instance:

I do not consent to an unlawful search and seizure.

I do not give you consent to unlawfully search my vehicle or my person.

I do not consent to a full body scan or a full body pat-down.

I do not consent to your Prima Facie code requiring a permit for free speech, as it is my statutory and constitutional right to express free speech and travel unencumbered while on public property, which overrides the non-statutory code that you have just quoted me.

Public Property refers to roadways, highways, sidewalks, airports (the entire airport), and any government held or owned building or business that is paid for by tax-payer money. Technically, all government property should be considered public property. After all, why should government have secrets from the people it represents, let alone property that it owns? It only owns property due to its corporate status. Complete transparency should be an integral part of a just and constitutional republic government…

Since the entirety of the airport was built with tax-payer money, and since the airport is a government building, the entire airport is public property. This means that the passageway to and from the entrance to the ticket counter to the bathroom to the gate all falls under one category: Public Property. Because of this, you have the absolute natural and constitutional right to travel on this public property, without permit, license, or any other form of legality. Law trumps legality every time. The only way you can loose this right is if you consent to the non-statutory CODE, which limits your God-given right to travel, and which requires your voluntary acquiescence to give up this right in lieu of a codified permit, license, or contract.

≈

Statutory Law

-vs-

Prima Facie Law

≈

This is not to say that all code is non-Statutory. In fact, of the 50 “TITLES” in UNITED STATES CODE, only 23 of those TITLES have been enacted into positive law; i.e. legal evidence of law (Congressional Statutory Law). These TITLES are as follows:

All other TITLES within the federal U.S. CODE (the topic of this writing) are what is called “Prima Facie” evidence of law. Prima facie is not statutory law (not made into law by congress), which means that it is only enforceable via your voluntary consent.

So, now that we have established that more than half of federal U.S. CODE is in fact not statutory law by congressional decree, and is instead a legal presumption which requires voluntary consent, and with an understanding that legal and lawful are two completely different concepts with regards to your consent, lets take a look at the U.S. CODE that covers federal airport security operations: DOMESTIC SECURITY.

The Domestic Security and Homeland Security offices are Federal Executive Agencies (see below), meaning they are Departments created and appointed by the Executive branch of the government (the President). Part of the lawful measures that protect the freedom of the American people against the always evident tyranny of government corruption and absolute power is our system of checks and balances. Because of these checks and balances, any act of the president of the UNITED STATES (Executive Branch) alone or through any Executive office or officer he appoints does not have power over the Free People of America. In other words, the president is not a dictator, and cannot act as one through his appointed officers without congressional authority. This is the greatest of checks and balances…

≈

TITLE 5—GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES (TITLE 5 is Statutory Law)

PART I–THE AGENCIES GENERALLY

§ 103. Government corporation

For the purpose of this title—

(1) ‘‘Government corporation’’ means a corporation owned or controlled by the Government of the United States;

(2) “Government controlled corporation” does not include a corporation owned by the Government of the United States.

The head of an Executive department or military department may prescribe regulations for the government of his department, the conduct of its employees, the distribution and performance of its business, and the custody, use, and preservation of its records, papers, and property. This section does not authorize withholding information from the public or limiting the availability of records to the public.

SECTION 103 (above) confirms to us that “Executive Agencies”, regardless of their TITLES, are in fact CORPORATIONS – and in paragraph (2), that the federal government does indeed “control” corporations and also “owns” corporations.

SECTION 105 (above) then confirms that “Executive agencies” are the same as and are defined as “Executive Departments”, which are in fact “Government Corporations”.

SECTION 301 (above) then tells us what these “Executive Departments” (Government Corporations) have authority to do by this Statutory Law (as defined in TITLE 5 of U.S. CODE). And so we can see that these Presidential appointed “Executive Departments” only have the authority by congress to make regulations within the bounds of the Presidents’ own appointed Executive Agency, and not outside of said Executive Department, and definitely not for or over the free American people without their consent. “Executive Departments” and their appointed officials have no authority over the free people granted from within this TITLE (5), and only have been granted power over the “employees” within that Executive Department.

In other words, the law (CODE) states that the head of an Executive Agency or Executive Department can only make regulations for and within his own agency, not for and within the Free People of America.

And this is where CONSENT comes in to play. For it is simply your consent that gives these codified non-statutory presumed laws and the code-enforcement officers who enforce them authority over you. Without your consent, they are literally powerless. They have no authority without your consent.

≈

Executive DOMESTIC SECURITY Department

≈

DOMESTIC SECURITY and most of its presumed authority and legality, and therefore its power, is in TITLE 6. Title 6 is not one of the 23 TITLES of U.S. CODE enacted into “Positive” or Statutory Law. So, nothing in TITLE 6 is in fact statutory law, and therefore it requires voluntary compliance through your consent. Also, in TITLE 6, you’ll find much of the regulation and power related to “HOMELAND SECURITY”.

Note: An Executive Order is an order that is not approved by Congress. It is an act solely of and by the President of the Corporation of the UNITED STATES that is not Staturtory Law nor constitutional. Since we have already established that the President is not a Dictator, these Executive Orders and Presidential Directives only apply to the Executive branch of the corporate Federal government and departments within, and only have authority over the Free People with their (your) consent!

≈

Here in black and white it is written in U.S. CODE that the TSA’s security-related guidance is in fact voluntary, meaning its power derives from your consent to give up your constitutional rights and allow this Executive Department to have the power to violate your God-given and 4rth amendment rights.

≈

TITLE 6—

CHAPTER 1–HOMELAND SECURITY ORGANIZATION (not statutory law)

SUBCHAPTER 1 – DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

§ 111 Executive department; mission

(a) Establishment

There is established a Department of Homeland Security, as an executive department of the United States within the meaning of title 5.

Section 112 states that the Department of Homeland Security is an Executive Department of the United States, as defined in TITLE 5. This means that the Department of Homeland Security is a Government Corporation, appointed by the President, who is not a dictator, and therefore this Executive Department requires consent by the Free People to have power and authority over those people. The Department of Homeland Security is not constitutionally lawful, as it is not consented to and made Statutory by congress.

Since the Secretary of Homeland Security is appointed by the President (with only the Senates’ consent), and indeed not the consent and approval of the Congress, and since this appointment is in TITLE 6 which is not Statutory Law, this tells us that there is no Congressional power behind the Secretary of Homeland Security over the actual Free People of America. In fact, the “Executive Departments” known as Domestic and Homeland Security has no authority over anyone outside of their own agency and employees. Remember… Washington D.C. (the Federal Government) is a 10 mile patch of land in the District of Columbia, and it is not located in and is not a part of the united states of America. It is a separate entity. A corporation. A country within a country.

To put this into perspective… let’s look at another Executive appointed office within the Executive branch of government. The President of the corporation of the UNITED STATES has appointed an executive department for the care of current corporate President Obama’s dog (the “first dog”). This department has the job of taking care of and grooming this dog, and is paid an over $100,000 salary plus $45,000 in benefits. But that is where his and his Executive appointed Departments’ power ends. He does not have the power to take care of your dog, and he certainly doesn’t have the power to force you or your dog to do anything you don’t want to do. But then, he might ask you or even tell you forcibly that he is going to feed, brush, and groom your dog! And if you wanted him to, all you’d have to do is to give Him and his “Executive Department” permission (consent) to do so, be it by verbal permission or lack of declaration of non-consent (inaction). Likewise, the Executive Departments of Domestic Security and of Homeland Security have no power to force you to do anything, especially to grope and hand-rape you and your children or to force you to walk through radiation expelling DNA destroying cancer causing devices… unless you give them permission (consent).

Remember, the President is not a Dictator due to governments checks and balances! And because of this, the President cannot dictate power over the Free People through any appointed office or political appointee. He is only in charge of the federal government as President of the CORPORATION. There are only two persons in the Executive Branch of government who have the peoples authority over the Executive Branch, but not over the people themselves: The President and the Vice President of U.S. INC. Every other officer, office, department, military branch (army, navy, air force, marines, coast guard, national guard etc…), and any other political appointment by the President has no authority over you, a free and natural man or woman – without your consent.

I cannot stress this enough. Your consent is the only thing that gives these bullies any power. This single word is the most powerful weapon in your arsenal against mislaid tyranny. It is a shield against the presumption of law, known as legality, or Prima Facie law.

≈

The DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

≈

TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION (TITLE 49 is Statutory Law)

SUBTITLE I–DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

§ 102. Department of Transportation

(a) The Department of Transportation is an executive department of the United States Government at the seat of Government.

(b) The head of the Department is the Secretary of Transportation. The Secretary is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

…….Note: Also very interesting in this section…….

…….An office to mitigate the effects of Climate Change (Chemtrails?)…….

(g) Office of Climate Change and Environment.—

(1) Establishment.— There is established in the Department an Office of Climate Change and Environment to plan, coordinate, and implement—

(A) department-wide research, strategies, and actions under the Department’s statutory authority to reduce transportation-related energy use and mitigate the effects of climate change; and

(B) department-wide research strategies and actions to address the impacts of climate change on transportation systems and infrastructure.

(2) Clearinghouse.— The Office shall establish a clearinghouse of solutions, including cost-effective congestion reduction approaches, to reduce air pollution and transportation-related energy use and mitigate the effects of climate change.

(h) The Department shall have a seal that shall be judicially recognized.

TITLE 49 is in fact Statutory Law by order of Congress, according to the list of U.S. CODES that are law above.

SECTION 102 states plainly that the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION is in fact an “Executive Department” – meaning it is a corporation that was appointed by the Executive Branch. And in Paragraph (B) it states that the Secretary of Transportation is an Executive (Presidential) appointed office with only the consent of the Senate, not of the congress. This makes the office of Secretary of Transportation Executive non-Statutory Law, and assigns no power over the Free People to this office or its Secretary.

SECTION 40103 in SUBTITLE 7 states that it is Statutory Law that transit through the “navigational airspace” is in fact a right, and not a privilege. This is important, because it reinforces the natural and constitutional right to travel freely by the American people, without permission, permit or regulation, throughout the land (and airspace). This TITLE is actually beneficial to the Free People, as this CODE recognizes the Free Peoples’ ability to travel as a right, not a privilege, and makes that a law – which severely cripples the “States” authority over you!

Right: (n.) – 1) an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process, or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include various freedoms, protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property, civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts, natural rights accepted by civilized societies, human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor, and such American constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition.

2) (adj.) just, fair, correct.

Right: In an abstract sense, justice, ethical correctness, or harmony with the rules of law or the principles of morals. In a concrete legal sense, a power, privilege, demand, or claim possessed by a particular person by virtue of law… In Constitutional Law, rights are classified as natural, civil, and political. Natural rights are those that are believed to grow out of the nature of the individual human being and depend on her personality, such as the rights to life, liberty, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness. (Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Right)

So in general, a right can never be restricted. If it is restricted by your consent to a contract, legality, etc… then it is no longer a RIGHT, but a PRIVILEGE granted by government (the State). Again, CONSENT must be given to turn a right into a privilege, through verbal contract or a lack of verbal non-consent, or through a written contract (permit, license, etc…) which you sign, giving up your rights for the privilege to do something, like traveling freely in a car as a natural right -vs- driving a car with a license, which is a contractual permission to drive from the state and permission (consent) by you to be punished for not obeying their rules under contractual law.

≈

The “STATE” and the “UNITED STATES”

-vs-

The Republic and the 50 states united

≈

It is important to understand what the corporate U.S. CODE defines as “the State”, and how that relates to the 50 states that form the Republic of the united states of America.

You must remember that U.S. CODE is the code writen for the corporation that is UNITED STATES INC. It is the system of law set up for the federal corporation to follow. This corporate structure was created to build a legal bridge over the lawful constitution for the united states of America, whereas the corporation of the same name, UNITED STATES INC, can operate outside of that constitution. And they created the corporate equivalent of the constitution through such tools as U.S.CODE.

Read the following very carefully…

≈

TITLE 28—JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART VI–PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 176–FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE

SUBCHAPTER A–DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

§ 3002. Definitions

(14) ‘‘State’’ means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States.

(15) “United States” means—

(A) a Federal corporation;

(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or

(a) The term “person” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 3797 of title 26.

(d) The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

(e) The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency, of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.

Once again, the U.S. CODE states irrevocably that the term “United States” is defined as a Corporation – In this case a “Federal Corporation”. This Federal Corporation was created strategically, to build a legal bridge over and bypass the real lawful declaration of independence and the constitution. This is not to say that the original constitution for the united states of America is not still in effect, but it is to say that as consenting citizens of the UNITED STATES as a corporation, we are bound by the corporation of the UNITED STATES and by its corporate rules, codes, legalities, and therefore its punishments, taxes, and fines as long as we consent and continuously enter into voluntary acquiescence of IT’S contracts, licenses, permits, and other contractually binding documents via our social security numbers (which are our livestock informational ownership ID’s)…

The word “State” is being defined here as anything other that the actual geographical land and Free People of the united states of America, and is being defined as all territory and PROPERTY of the corporation of the UNITED STATES. Here the “States” are not any of the 50 states of the constitutional republic. “States” in this CODE refers to something which belongs as property (a corporate term) to the UNITED STATES INC, the corporation. No state of the union is owned by the federal government according to the constitution, and no part of any of the 50 States is owned by the United States, for that would be against the precepts of the Constitution and the very foundation of the republic and the intentions of and enumerated powers of the federal government.

Paragraph (a) states that a “person” is defined elsewhere. After following the breadcrumb trail, I finally arrived here:

≈

TITLE 26–INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

SUBTITLE F–PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 79–DEFINITIONS

§ 7701. Definitions

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(1) Person

The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

(14) Taxpayer

The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

TITLE 26, which holds the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE that is used by the Internal Revenue Service as the basis to tax, steal, imprison, subjugate, and ruin the lives of many Americans… IS NOT STATUTORY LAW. IT REQUIRES CONSENT!

This means that the entire basis for the Income Tax levied on the people of America is strictly voluntary! You enter into an agreement with the IRS tax forms you fill out.

If the word “taxpayer” as defined above in paragraph (14) is any “person” as defined above in paragraph (1) that is “subject to any internal revenue tax”, and if the U.S. CODE requires consent for the so defined “person” to be subject to any authority presented by the IRS and it’s non-Statutory, Prima Facie INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, then no individual Free Man or Woman in America is required to pay and income tax on their wages earned, unless they consent to doing so by signing the corporate IRS and IRC paperwork that binds them to the tax.

This is not the case with individual “persons” who own corporations, for the corporation is an artificial person, which is not a Free Man or Woman, given permission to exist by the U.S.CODE, and must obey these CODES as required in the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE listed above. It is not the individual “person” that owes the tax, but is instead the corporation for which that real “person” owns.

The question is, can that individual “person” be held responsible for paying Income Taxes to the IRS for their Corporation out of their own income from said Corporation. Is this not just a paycheck similar to every other “person’s” income, written by a separate entity called a corporation – an artificial person?

This is an interesting paradox… Can you be held accountable for your corporation’s debt to the IRS if the corporation is not you, a Free Man or Woman, but indeed a separate (artificial) “State”-created person altogether?

≈

TITLE 5–GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

PART I–THE AGENCIES GENERALLY

§ 103. Government corporation – For the purpose of this title—

(1) ‘‘Government corporation’’ means a corporation owned or controlled by the Government of the United States

(Sourced above)

TITLE 31—MONEY AND FINANCE

SUBTITLE I–GENERAL

§ 103. United States – In this title, ‘‘United States’’, when used in a geographic sense, means the States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

TITLE 5, repeated here from above, once again shows that the United States, for which TITLE 28 defines as a Federal Corporation, now helps to define what the word “State” means in this U.S. CODE. TITLE 5 helps to define the word “State” as a Government Corporation.

TITLE 31 is statutory Law. This TITLE declares that the “United States” are the 50 “States” (government corporations) of this “Federal Corporation”.

≈

TITLE 18–CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Statutory Law)

PART I–CRIMES

CHAPTER 109–SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Sec. 2236. Searches without warrant

Whoever, being an officer, agent, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, engaged in the enforcement of any law of the United States, searches any private dwelling used and occupied as such dwelling without a warrant directing such search, or maliciously and without reasonable cause searches any other building or property without a search warrant, shall be fined under this title for a first offense; and, for a subsequent offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

This section shall not apply to any person–

(a) serving a warrant of arrest; or

(b) arresting or attempting to arrest a person committing or attempting to commit an offense in his presence, or who has committed or is suspected on reasonable grounds of having committed a felony; or

(c) making a search at the request or invitation or with the consent of the occupant of the premises.

TITLE 18 is Statutory Law. Simply stated, paragraph (c) tells us that we have no recourse against the Agency Agent (TSA, Policeman, etc.) if we give our consent to be searched, meaning they can touch us anywhere and however the want if we consent to a search, and the fact that you do not deny your consent means that you are indeed granting consent to search and seizure, by which consent eliminates this protective CODE – as stated above in paragraph (c): “This section shall not apply to any person–making a search at the request or invitation or with the consent of the occupant of the premises.” This cancels this statute in court for use as in your defense, because your consent relieved any protective aspect of this statutory law. They could rape you because you gave consent, and this Statutory Law (CODE) would stop a courts’ ruling of rape, calling that rape or molestation a “consensual search”. VERY IMPORTANT!!!

By denying consent to be searched and/or to have your property seized by this Government Corporation/Executive Department, IT has no right or authority to interact with you, detain you, or block your way to freely travel without reasonable proof of a commitment of a felony, or in order to serve a warrant for your arrest (and a warrant would take a long time to acquire from a court).

≈

Recap

≈

Nobody has the right to see or check your plane ticket or ID but the airline in which you are doing business with. Only an airline representative can request your ticket. Unless the TSA and police have probable cause to detain you, you are not bound by these corporate code enforcement officers if you do not consent and acquiesce to their presumed authority. Consent and non-consent must be verbally stated, as inaction and silence can be considered as consent. Do not be intimidated by these power-hungry thugs in Federal Corporation U.S. INC uniforms. Remember, their power is delegated by Statutory Law only to the 10 mile non united states of America piece of land called Washington D.C, and only within their own federal department – not over you as a Free and Sovereign man or woman. Stand your ground. Fear and intimidation are the only power they have. Without it, and without your consent, they are powerless – but only if you so declare.

If these Executive appointed federal government corporate workers threaten or try to intimidate you by standing in your way or telling or asking you to wait for a supervisor, do not comply. Simply state that you are a Sovereign man or woman, that you do not consent, that you do not give that federal employee any authority over you or your children (or property), and that they may not impede your God-given and constitutional right to travel nor violate any of your natural rights. Then politely ask if you are being detained, and am I free to be on my way.

You may also let the federal corporate employee know that you intend to sue them and their department head’s bond at a certain dollar amount ($100 per minute, for example) if they interfere with your free right to travel on public property by contractually and forcibly detaining you (by verbally claiming authority to halt your free travel despite your non-consent to their authority to do so).

Film this process. A video camera is your best defense and offense, and these thugs do not like being filmed. Video footage of this exchange is your record and evidence of your lack of consent in a court of law.

If they still intimidate you, follow up with a taste of their own medicine… State that you are warning them that anything that you say and do to me or my family can and will be used against you in a Court of Law, a Common Law Court, and as evidence for a Grand Jury.

And most important, do not answer any questions posed to you by these Federal Employees. You have the right to remain silent! Remember, they have no authority or rule of law on their side to interact or ask you anything without your consent. Answering their questions could be construed by them and by a corporate judge in a court of law as consent.

And remember, your local police and Airport Police work for the municipal corporation that is acting as a government in your city or county. They are corporations as well, making them corporate police or code enforcers. They need your consent too. They cannot detain you or restrict your movement without violating the warning you just gave them. You are a free traveler. You do not consent to their questions or their unlawful interference with your freedom of travel in a public place. Again, you are not required to answer their questions as you have the right to remain silent. Your answers can be misconstrued as consent to their authority over you, and you must verbally acknowledge that you do not consent (the only reason to break your silence).

Be polite. Never become confrontational, rude, or arrogant. A confident attitude mixed with a polite and straight-forward attitude is a winner every time. Do not get tricked into a “friendly conversation” or banter with a corporate code enforcement thug. It will only lead to frustration, argument, and possible unwitting consent. These guys are trained to trip up people like you – free people claiming their rights above corporate tyranny.

If you do not let the situation escalate, and instead control the conversation by simply not consenting to have a conversation or answer any questions, you are free to go by law and Statutory Law.

Warning: they may not step out of your way. They may stand in front of you and not say anything or that you are free to go to intimidate you further. They will tell you, however, if you are being detained. It is a chess game. If they step aside or if they do not, you should just start walking to your destination. Their consent to your rights is their inaction to detain you.

Remember, the courts are private corporations, often owned outright by the very judges who rule the court, and rent that court to the corporate government municipality unlawfully. These “judges” are corporate attorneys in fancy black robes, who work for the corporate government of the United States, and will always rule in favor of the “city”, “county”, or “state” corporation he works for. An attorney will never represent you in court. An attorney is there to ensure the continuity of court procedure, and by taking an attorney as representation for yourself in court, you have just contractually admitted to the corporate court that you are unfit and too mentally unstable to represent yourself in court. You are then a ward of the court. This is consent of the judicial system, which again is part of the corporation. Every judge works for the United States Corporation, and therefore his first interest is always to protect the corporate interest, to not set precedent that could be beneficial to Sovereignty and freedom, and is never concerned with justice for the people including yourself.

≈

FEMA Camps, Oh My!

≈

Now, some of you may be thinking, after years of fear and conditioning, that Homeland Security might throw you into a FEMA camp for such disregard of corporate legality and authority over your freedom. But guess what? FEMA is in TITLE 6, is an Executive Department, is not Statutory Law, and requires your consent of authority!

≈

TITLE 6–DOMESTIC SECURITY (TITLE 6 is not Statutory Law)

CHAPTER 1–HOMELAND SECURITY ORGANIZATION

SUBCHAPTER V–NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

§ 313. Federal Emergency Management Agency

(a) In general

There is in the Department the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by an Administrator.

One question remains… Even though some of these U.S. CODES exist in the Congressional Statutory realm of Law, can a corporation – a private for-profit non-representative corporation – enact any law over the Free and Sovereign people of the republic of the united states of America without their consent?

Constitutionally speaking… No.

The powers of the Federal Government are specifically enumerated in the constitution.

More importantly, nowhere does it mention that a vile corporation should be given power to take the place of this constitutionally created representative federal government and then enact laws and CODES which break free of these enumerated powers. Therefore, if we examine the source of this U.S. CODE, no office in the Federal Government can have lawful power over the people unless it is consented to by the Free People, simply because the whole of the private Corporation known today as the Federal Government of the UNITED STATES is not a constitutional entity. Thus even the Statutory Laws based on U.S. CODE are not constitutional, and therefore require our consent as Free People. No corporation can be government, nor can a private corporation nor their corporate code-enforcement police force have power over the people without our contractual consent.

Also, you’ll find that many Federal Executive Departments in fact have no authority except by your consent if you start on your own journey of researching U.S.CODE. Health and Human Services, Child Protective Services, Terrorism Protection, Military, and many more unconstitutional Executive corporate structures that have no Statutory Law to back up their powers.